Dermatology News

Every medical oncologist who has described a combination chemotherapy regimen to a patient with advanced cancer has likely been asked whether the benefits of tumor shrinkage, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival are worth the risks of adverse events (AEs).

Single-agent immunotherapy and, more recently, combinations of immunotherapy drugs have been approved for a variety of metastatic tumors. In general, combination immunotherapy regimens have more AEs and a higher frequency of premature treatment discontinuation for toxicity.

Michael Postow, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, reflected on new ways to evaluate the benefits and risks of immunotherapy combinations during a plenary session on novel combinations at the American Association for Cancer Research’s Virtual Special Conference on Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy.
 

Potential targets

As with chemotherapy drugs, immunotherapy combinations make the most sense when drugs targeting independent processes are employed.

As described in a paper published in Nature in 2011, the process for recruiting the immune system to combat cancer is as follows:

• Dendritic cells must sample antigens derived from the tumor.
• The dendritic cells must receive an activation signal so they promote immunity rather than tolerance.
• The tumor antigen–loaded dendritic cells need to generate protective T-cell responses, instead of T-regulatory responses, in lymphoid tissues.
• Cancer antigen–specific T cells must enter tumor tissues.
• Tumor-derived mechanisms for promoting immunosuppression need to be circumvented.

Since each step in the cascade is a potential therapeutic target, there are large numbers of potential drug combinations.
 

Measuring impact

Conventional measurements of tumor response may not be adequately sensitive to the impact from immunotherapy drugs. A case in point is sipuleucel-T, which is approved to treat advanced prostate cancer.

In the pivotal phase 3 trial, only 1 of 341 patients receiving sipuleucel-T achieved a partial response by RECIST criteria. Only 2.6% of patients had a 50% reduction in prostate-specific antigen levels. Nonetheless, a 4.1-month improvement in median overall survival was achieved. These results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The discrepancy between tumor shrinkage and survival benefit for immunotherapy is not unexpected. As many as 10% of patients treated with ipilimumab (ipi) for stage IV malignant melanoma have progressive disease by tumor size but experience prolongation of survival, according to guidelines published in Clinical Cancer Research.

Accurate assessment of the ultimate efficacy of immunotherapy over time would benefit patients and clinicians since immune checkpoint inhibitors are often administered for several years, are financially costly, and treatment-associated AEs emerge unpredictably at any time.

Curtailing the duration of ineffective treatment could be valuable from many perspectives.
 

Immunotherapy combinations in metastatic melanoma

In the CheckMate 067 study, there was an improvement in response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival for nivolumab (nivo) plus ipi or nivo alone, in comparison with ipi alone, in patients with advanced melanoma. Initial results from this trial were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017.

At a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the 5-year overall survival was 52% for the nivo/ipi regimen, 44% for nivo alone, and 26% for ipi alone. These results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019.

The trial was not statistically powered to conclude whether the overall survival for the combination was superior to that of single-agent nivo alone, but both nivo regimens were superior to ipi alone.

Unfortunately, the combination also produced the highest treatment-related AE rates – 59% with nivo/ipi, 23% with nivo, and 28% with ipi in 2019. In the 2017 report, the combination regimen had more than twice as many premature treatment discontinuations as the other two study arms.

Is there a better way to quantify the risk-benefit ratio and explain it to patients?
 

Alternative strategies for assessing benefit: Treatment-free survival

Researchers have proposed treatment-free survival (TFS) as a potential new metric to characterize not only antitumor activity but also toxicity experienced after the cessation of therapy and before initiation of subsequent systemic therapy or death.

TFS is defined as the area between Kaplan-Meier curves from immunotherapy cessation until the reinitiation of systemic therapy or death. All patients who began immunotherapy are included – not just those achieving response or concluding a predefined number of cycles of treatment.

The curves can be partitioned into states with and without toxicity to establish a unique endpoint: time to cessation of both immunotherapy and toxicity.

Researchers conducted a pooled analysis of 3-year follow-up data from the 1,077 patients who participated in CheckMate 069, testing nivo/ipi versus nivo alone, and CheckMate 067, comparing nivo/ipi, nivo alone, and ipi alone. The results were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The TFS without grade 3 or higher AEs was 28% for nivo/ipi, 11% for nivo alone, and 23% for ipi alone. The restricted mean time without either treatment or grade 3 or greater AEs was 10.1 months, 4.1 months, and 8.5 months, respectively.

TFS incentivizes the use of regimens that have:

• A short duration of treatment
• Prolonged time to subsequent therapy or death
• Only mild AEs of brief duration.

A higher TFS corresponds with the goals that patients and their providers would have for a treatment regimen.
 

Adaptive models provide clues about benefit from extended therapy

In contrast to cytotoxic chemotherapy and molecularly targeted agents, benefit from immune-targeted therapy can deepen and persist after treatment discontinuation.

In advanced melanoma, researchers observed that overall survival was similar for patients who discontinued nivo/ipi because of AEs during the induction phase of treatment and those who did not. These results were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

This observation has led to an individualized, adaptive approach to de-escalating combination immunotherapy, described in Clinical Cancer Research. The approach is dubbed “SMART,” which stands for sequential multiple assignment randomized trial designs.

With the SMART approach, each stage of a trial corresponds to an important treatment decision point. The goal is to define the population of patients who can safely discontinue treatment based on response, rather than doing so after the development of AEs.

In the Adapt-IT prospective study, 60 patients with advanced melanoma with poor prognostic features were given two doses of nivo/ipi followed by a CT scan at week 6. They were triaged to stopping ipi and proceeding with maintenance therapy with nivo alone or continuing the combination for an additional two cycles of treatment. Results from this trial were presented at ASCO 2020 (abstract 10003).

The investigators found that 68% of patients had no tumor burden increase at week 6 and could discontinue ipi. For those patients, their response rate of 57% approached the expected results from a full course of ipi.

At median follow-up of 22.3 months, median response duration, PFS, and overall survival had not been reached for the responders who received an abbreviated course of the combination regimen.

There were two observations that suggested the first two cycles of treatment drove not only toxicity but also tumor control:

• The rate of grade 3-4 toxicity from only two cycles was high (57%).
• Of the 19 patients (32% of the original 60 patients) who had progressive disease after two cycles of nivo/ipi, there were no responders with continued therapy.

Dr. Postow commented that, in correlative studies conducted as part of Adapt-IT, the Ki-67 of CD8-positive T cells increased after the initial dose of nivo/ipi. However, proliferation did not continue with subsequent cycles (that is, Ki-67 did not continue to rise).

When they examined markers of T-cell stimulation such as inducible costimulator of CD8-positive T cells, the researchers observed the same effect. The “immune boost” occurred with cycle one but not after subsequent doses of the nivo/ipi combination.

Although unproven in clinical trials at this time, these data suggest that response and risks of toxicity may not support giving patients more than one cycle of combination treatment.
 

More nuanced ways of assessing tumor growth

Dr. Postow noted that judgment about treatment effects over time are often made by displaying spider plots of changes from baseline tumor size from “time zero” – the time at which combination therapy is commenced.

He speculated that it might be worthwhile to give a dose or two of immune-targeted monotherapy (such as a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor alone) before time zero, measure tumor growth prior to and after the single agent, and reserve using combination immunotherapy only for those patients who do not experience a dampening of the growth curve.

Patients whose tumor growth kinetics are improved with single-agent treatment could be spared the additional toxicity (and uncertain additive benefit) from the second agent.
 

Treatment optimization: More than ‘messaging’

Oncology practice has passed through a long era of “more is better,” an era that gave rise to intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy for hematologic and solid tumors in the metastatic and adjuvant settings. In some cases, that approach proved to be curative, but not in all.

More recently, because of better staging, improved outcomes with newer technology and treatments, and concern about immediate- and late-onset health risks, there has been an effort to deintensify therapy when it can be done safely.

Once a treatment regimen and treatment duration become established, however, patients and their physicians are reluctant to deintensity therapy.

Dr. Postow’s presentation demonstrated that, with regard to immunotherapy combinations – as in other realms of medical practice – science can lead the way to treatment optimization for individual patients.

We have the potential to reassure patients that treatment de-escalation is a rational and personalized component of treatment optimization through the combination of:

• Identifying new endpoints to quantify treatment benefits and risks.
• SMART trial designs.
• Innovative ways to assess tumor response during each phase of a treatment course.

Precision assessment of immunotherapy effect in individual patients can be a key part of precision medicine.

Dr. Postow disclosed relationships with Aduro, Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Incyte, Infinity, Merck, NewLink Genetics, Novartis, and RGenix.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Every medical oncologist who has described a combination chemotherapy regimen to a patient with advanced cancer has likely been asked whether the benefits of tumor shrinkage, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival are worth the risks of adverse events (AEs).

Single-agent immunotherapy and, more recently, combinations of immunotherapy drugs have been approved for a variety of metastatic tumors. In general, combination immunotherapy regimens have more AEs and a higher frequency of premature treatment discontinuation for toxicity.

Michael Postow, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, reflected on new ways to evaluate the benefits and risks of immunotherapy combinations during a plenary session on novel combinations at the American Association for Cancer Research’s Virtual Special Conference on Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy.
 

Potential targets

As with chemotherapy drugs, immunotherapy combinations make the most sense when drugs targeting independent processes are employed.

As described in a paper published in Nature in 2011, the process for recruiting the immune system to combat cancer is as follows:

• Dendritic cells must sample antigens derived from the tumor.
• The dendritic cells must receive an activation signal so they promote immunity rather than tolerance.
• The tumor antigen–loaded dendritic cells need to generate protective T-cell responses, instead of T-regulatory responses, in lymphoid tissues.
• Cancer antigen–specific T cells must enter tumor tissues.
• Tumor-derived mechanisms for promoting immunosuppression need to be circumvented.

Since each step in the cascade is a potential therapeutic target, there are large numbers of potential drug combinations.
 

Measuring impact

Conventional measurements of tumor response may not be adequately sensitive to the impact from immunotherapy drugs. A case in point is sipuleucel-T, which is approved to treat advanced prostate cancer.

In the pivotal phase 3 trial, only 1 of 341 patients receiving sipuleucel-T achieved a partial response by RECIST criteria. Only 2.6% of patients had a 50% reduction in prostate-specific antigen levels. Nonetheless, a 4.1-month improvement in median overall survival was achieved. These results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The discrepancy between tumor shrinkage and survival benefit for immunotherapy is not unexpected. As many as 10% of patients treated with ipilimumab (ipi) for stage IV malignant melanoma have progressive disease by tumor size but experience prolongation of survival, according to guidelines published in Clinical Cancer Research.

Accurate assessment of the ultimate efficacy of immunotherapy over time would benefit patients and clinicians since immune checkpoint inhibitors are often administered for several years, are financially costly, and treatment-associated AEs emerge unpredictably at any time.

Curtailing the duration of ineffective treatment could be valuable from many perspectives.
 

Immunotherapy combinations in metastatic melanoma

In the CheckMate 067 study, there was an improvement in response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival for nivolumab (nivo) plus ipi or nivo alone, in comparison with ipi alone, in patients with advanced melanoma. Initial results from this trial were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017.

At a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the 5-year overall survival was 52% for the nivo/ipi regimen, 44% for nivo alone, and 26% for ipi alone. These results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019.

The trial was not statistically powered to conclude whether the overall survival for the combination was superior to that of single-agent nivo alone, but both nivo regimens were superior to ipi alone.

Unfortunately, the combination also produced the highest treatment-related AE rates – 59% with nivo/ipi, 23% with nivo, and 28% with ipi in 2019. In the 2017 report, the combination regimen had more than twice as many premature treatment discontinuations as the other two study arms.

Is there a better way to quantify the risk-benefit ratio and explain it to patients?
 

Alternative strategies for assessing benefit: Treatment-free survival

Researchers have proposed treatment-free survival (TFS) as a potential new metric to characterize not only antitumor activity but also toxicity experienced after the cessation of therapy and before initiation of subsequent systemic therapy or death.

TFS is defined as the area between Kaplan-Meier curves from immunotherapy cessation until the reinitiation of systemic therapy or death. All patients who began immunotherapy are included – not just those achieving response or concluding a predefined number of cycles of treatment.

The curves can be partitioned into states with and without toxicity to establish a unique endpoint: time to cessation of both immunotherapy and toxicity.

Researchers conducted a pooled analysis of 3-year follow-up data from the 1,077 patients who participated in CheckMate 069, testing nivo/ipi versus nivo alone, and CheckMate 067, comparing nivo/ipi, nivo alone, and ipi alone. The results were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The TFS without grade 3 or higher AEs was 28% for nivo/ipi, 11% for nivo alone, and 23% for ipi alone. The restricted mean time without either treatment or grade 3 or greater AEs was 10.1 months, 4.1 months, and 8.5 months, respectively.

TFS incentivizes the use of regimens that have:

• A short duration of treatment
• Prolonged time to subsequent therapy or death
• Only mild AEs of brief duration.

A higher TFS corresponds with the goals that patients and their providers would have for a treatment regimen.
 

Adaptive models provide clues about benefit from extended therapy

In contrast to cytotoxic chemotherapy and molecularly targeted agents, benefit from immune-targeted therapy can deepen and persist after treatment discontinuation.

In advanced melanoma, researchers observed that overall survival was similar for patients who discontinued nivo/ipi because of AEs during the induction phase of treatment and those who did not. These results were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

This observation has led to an individualized, adaptive approach to de-escalating combination immunotherapy, described in Clinical Cancer Research. The approach is dubbed “SMART,” which stands for sequential multiple assignment randomized trial designs.

With the SMART approach, each stage of a trial corresponds to an important treatment decision point. The goal is to define the population of patients who can safely discontinue treatment based on response, rather than doing so after the development of AEs.

In the Adapt-IT prospective study, 60 patients with advanced melanoma with poor prognostic features were given two doses of nivo/ipi followed by a CT scan at week 6. They were triaged to stopping ipi and proceeding with maintenance therapy with nivo alone or continuing the combination for an additional two cycles of treatment. Results from this trial were presented at ASCO 2020 (abstract 10003).

The investigators found that 68% of patients had no tumor burden increase at week 6 and could discontinue ipi. For those patients, their response rate of 57% approached the expected results from a full course of ipi.

At median follow-up of 22.3 months, median response duration, PFS, and overall survival had not been reached for the responders who received an abbreviated course of the combination regimen.

There were two observations that suggested the first two cycles of treatment drove not only toxicity but also tumor control:

• The rate of grade 3-4 toxicity from only two cycles was high (57%).
• Of the 19 patients (32% of the original 60 patients) who had progressive disease after two cycles of nivo/ipi, there were no responders with continued therapy.

Dr. Postow commented that, in correlative studies conducted as part of Adapt-IT, the Ki-67 of CD8-positive T cells increased after the initial dose of nivo/ipi. However, proliferation did not continue with subsequent cycles (that is, Ki-67 did not continue to rise).

When they examined markers of T-cell stimulation such as inducible costimulator of CD8-positive T cells, the researchers observed the same effect. The “immune boost” occurred with cycle one but not after subsequent doses of the nivo/ipi combination.

Although unproven in clinical trials at this time, these data suggest that response and risks of toxicity may not support giving patients more than one cycle of combination treatment.
 

More nuanced ways of assessing tumor growth

Dr. Postow noted that judgment about treatment effects over time are often made by displaying spider plots of changes from baseline tumor size from “time zero” – the time at which combination therapy is commenced.

He speculated that it might be worthwhile to give a dose or two of immune-targeted monotherapy (such as a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor alone) before time zero, measure tumor growth prior to and after the single agent, and reserve using combination immunotherapy only for those patients who do not experience a dampening of the growth curve.

Patients whose tumor growth kinetics are improved with single-agent treatment could be spared the additional toxicity (and uncertain additive benefit) from the second agent.
 

Treatment optimization: More than ‘messaging’

Oncology practice has passed through a long era of “more is better,” an era that gave rise to intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy for hematologic and solid tumors in the metastatic and adjuvant settings. In some cases, that approach proved to be curative, but not in all.

More recently, because of better staging, improved outcomes with newer technology and treatments, and concern about immediate- and late-onset health risks, there has been an effort to deintensify therapy when it can be done safely.

Once a treatment regimen and treatment duration become established, however, patients and their physicians are reluctant to deintensity therapy.

Dr. Postow’s presentation demonstrated that, with regard to immunotherapy combinations – as in other realms of medical practice – science can lead the way to treatment optimization for individual patients.

We have the potential to reassure patients that treatment de-escalation is a rational and personalized component of treatment optimization through the combination of:

• Identifying new endpoints to quantify treatment benefits and risks.
• SMART trial designs.
• Innovative ways to assess tumor response during each phase of a treatment course.

Precision assessment of immunotherapy effect in individual patients can be a key part of precision medicine.

Dr. Postow disclosed relationships with Aduro, Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Incyte, Infinity, Merck, NewLink Genetics, Novartis, and RGenix.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Every medical oncologist who has described a combination chemotherapy regimen to a patient with advanced cancer has likely been asked whether the benefits of tumor shrinkage, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival are worth the risks of adverse events (AEs).

Single-agent immunotherapy and, more recently, combinations of immunotherapy drugs have been approved for a variety of metastatic tumors. In general, combination immunotherapy regimens have more AEs and a higher frequency of premature treatment discontinuation for toxicity.

Michael Postow, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, reflected on new ways to evaluate the benefits and risks of immunotherapy combinations during a plenary session on novel combinations at the American Association for Cancer Research’s Virtual Special Conference on Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy.
 

Potential targets

As with chemotherapy drugs, immunotherapy combinations make the most sense when drugs targeting independent processes are employed.

As described in a paper published in Nature in 2011, the process for recruiting the immune system to combat cancer is as follows:

• Dendritic cells must sample antigens derived from the tumor.
• The dendritic cells must receive an activation signal so they promote immunity rather than tolerance.
• The tumor antigen–loaded dendritic cells need to generate protective T-cell responses, instead of T-regulatory responses, in lymphoid tissues.
• Cancer antigen–specific T cells must enter tumor tissues.
• Tumor-derived mechanisms for promoting immunosuppression need to be circumvented.

Since each step in the cascade is a potential therapeutic target, there are large numbers of potential drug combinations.
 

Measuring impact

Conventional measurements of tumor response may not be adequately sensitive to the impact from immunotherapy drugs. A case in point is sipuleucel-T, which is approved to treat advanced prostate cancer.

In the pivotal phase 3 trial, only 1 of 341 patients receiving sipuleucel-T achieved a partial response by RECIST criteria. Only 2.6% of patients had a 50% reduction in prostate-specific antigen levels. Nonetheless, a 4.1-month improvement in median overall survival was achieved. These results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The discrepancy between tumor shrinkage and survival benefit for immunotherapy is not unexpected. As many as 10% of patients treated with ipilimumab (ipi) for stage IV malignant melanoma have progressive disease by tumor size but experience prolongation of survival, according to guidelines published in Clinical Cancer Research.

Accurate assessment of the ultimate efficacy of immunotherapy over time would benefit patients and clinicians since immune checkpoint inhibitors are often administered for several years, are financially costly, and treatment-associated AEs emerge unpredictably at any time.

Curtailing the duration of ineffective treatment could be valuable from many perspectives.
 

Immunotherapy combinations in metastatic melanoma

In the CheckMate 067 study, there was an improvement in response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival for nivolumab (nivo) plus ipi or nivo alone, in comparison with ipi alone, in patients with advanced melanoma. Initial results from this trial were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017.

At a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the 5-year overall survival was 52% for the nivo/ipi regimen, 44% for nivo alone, and 26% for ipi alone. These results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019.

The trial was not statistically powered to conclude whether the overall survival for the combination was superior to that of single-agent nivo alone, but both nivo regimens were superior to ipi alone.

Unfortunately, the combination also produced the highest treatment-related AE rates – 59% with nivo/ipi, 23% with nivo, and 28% with ipi in 2019. In the 2017 report, the combination regimen had more than twice as many premature treatment discontinuations as the other two study arms.

Is there a better way to quantify the risk-benefit ratio and explain it to patients?
 

Alternative strategies for assessing benefit: Treatment-free survival

Researchers have proposed treatment-free survival (TFS) as a potential new metric to characterize not only antitumor activity but also toxicity experienced after the cessation of therapy and before initiation of subsequent systemic therapy or death.

TFS is defined as the area between Kaplan-Meier curves from immunotherapy cessation until the reinitiation of systemic therapy or death. All patients who began immunotherapy are included – not just those achieving response or concluding a predefined number of cycles of treatment.

The curves can be partitioned into states with and without toxicity to establish a unique endpoint: time to cessation of both immunotherapy and toxicity.

Researchers conducted a pooled analysis of 3-year follow-up data from the 1,077 patients who participated in CheckMate 069, testing nivo/ipi versus nivo alone, and CheckMate 067, comparing nivo/ipi, nivo alone, and ipi alone. The results were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The TFS without grade 3 or higher AEs was 28% for nivo/ipi, 11% for nivo alone, and 23% for ipi alone. The restricted mean time without either treatment or grade 3 or greater AEs was 10.1 months, 4.1 months, and 8.5 months, respectively.

TFS incentivizes the use of regimens that have:

• A short duration of treatment
• Prolonged time to subsequent therapy or death
• Only mild AEs of brief duration.

A higher TFS corresponds with the goals that patients and their providers would have for a treatment regimen.
 

Adaptive models provide clues about benefit from extended therapy

In contrast to cytotoxic chemotherapy and molecularly targeted agents, benefit from immune-targeted therapy can deepen and persist after treatment discontinuation.

In advanced melanoma, researchers observed that overall survival was similar for patients who discontinued nivo/ipi because of AEs during the induction phase of treatment and those who did not. These results were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

This observation has led to an individualized, adaptive approach to de-escalating combination immunotherapy, described in Clinical Cancer Research. The approach is dubbed “SMART,” which stands for sequential multiple assignment randomized trial designs.

With the SMART approach, each stage of a trial corresponds to an important treatment decision point. The goal is to define the population of patients who can safely discontinue treatment based on response, rather than doing so after the development of AEs.

In the Adapt-IT prospective study, 60 patients with advanced melanoma with poor prognostic features were given two doses of nivo/ipi followed by a CT scan at week 6. They were triaged to stopping ipi and proceeding with maintenance therapy with nivo alone or continuing the combination for an additional two cycles of treatment. Results from this trial were presented at ASCO 2020 (abstract 10003).

The investigators found that 68% of patients had no tumor burden increase at week 6 and could discontinue ipi. For those patients, their response rate of 57% approached the expected results from a full course of ipi.

At median follow-up of 22.3 months, median response duration, PFS, and overall survival had not been reached for the responders who received an abbreviated course of the combination regimen.

There were two observations that suggested the first two cycles of treatment drove not only toxicity but also tumor control:

• The rate of grade 3-4 toxicity from only two cycles was high (57%).
• Of the 19 patients (32% of the original 60 patients) who had progressive disease after two cycles of nivo/ipi, there were no responders with continued therapy.

Dr. Postow commented that, in correlative studies conducted as part of Adapt-IT, the Ki-67 of CD8-positive T cells increased after the initial dose of nivo/ipi. However, proliferation did not continue with subsequent cycles (that is, Ki-67 did not continue to rise).

When they examined markers of T-cell stimulation such as inducible costimulator of CD8-positive T cells, the researchers observed the same effect. The “immune boost” occurred with cycle one but not after subsequent doses of the nivo/ipi combination.

Although unproven in clinical trials at this time, these data suggest that response and risks of toxicity may not support giving patients more than one cycle of combination treatment.
 

More nuanced ways of assessing tumor growth

Dr. Postow noted that judgment about treatment effects over time are often made by displaying spider plots of changes from baseline tumor size from “time zero” – the time at which combination therapy is commenced.

He speculated that it might be worthwhile to give a dose or two of immune-targeted monotherapy (such as a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor alone) before time zero, measure tumor growth prior to and after the single agent, and reserve using combination immunotherapy only for those patients who do not experience a dampening of the growth curve.

Patients whose tumor growth kinetics are improved with single-agent treatment could be spared the additional toxicity (and uncertain additive benefit) from the second agent.
 

Treatment optimization: More than ‘messaging’

Oncology practice has passed through a long era of “more is better,” an era that gave rise to intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy for hematologic and solid tumors in the metastatic and adjuvant settings. In some cases, that approach proved to be curative, but not in all.

More recently, because of better staging, improved outcomes with newer technology and treatments, and concern about immediate- and late-onset health risks, there has been an effort to deintensify therapy when it can be done safely.

Once a treatment regimen and treatment duration become established, however, patients and their physicians are reluctant to deintensity therapy.

Dr. Postow’s presentation demonstrated that, with regard to immunotherapy combinations – as in other realms of medical practice – science can lead the way to treatment optimization for individual patients.

We have the potential to reassure patients that treatment de-escalation is a rational and personalized component of treatment optimization through the combination of:

• Identifying new endpoints to quantify treatment benefits and risks.
• SMART trial designs.
• Innovative ways to assess tumor response during each phase of a treatment course.

Precision assessment of immunotherapy effect in individual patients can be a key part of precision medicine.

Dr. Postow disclosed relationships with Aduro, Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Incyte, Infinity, Merck, NewLink Genetics, Novartis, and RGenix.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

COVID-19’s toll on member facilities pushed the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) recently to take a sizable gamble.

AASM announced in September that it would waive facility fees at all 2,648 AASM-accredited sleep facilities for 2021.

At $1,800-$2,600 for each facility, that will mean lost revenue of between $4.8 million and $6.9 million, but it’s a risk the academy felt it had to take.

AASM President Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, said in an interview that they are betting on the future of the field.

An internal survey of members, he said, found that nearly half (46%) of the 551 respondents thought they might have to close by the end of the year.

In addition, 66% reported a lower patient volume in the past month, and 36% reported that their practice or facility had to apply for loans or other financial assistance because of COVID-19, AASM said in its press release.

“We are hoping that if we help our members through this, they will be there for our patients,” Dr. Ramar said.

Other medical societies also are weighing options, straddling the line between needing income to provide resources for members but being acutely aware of the financial toll the pandemic is taking, according to one sampling.

As previously reported, primary care practices are projected to lose more than $68,000 in revenue per full-time physician in 2020, after steep drops in office visits and the collection of fees from March to May, according to a study led by researchers in the Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Those losses were calculated without considering a potential second wave of COVID-19 this year, the authors noted.
 

‘We can survive this’

Although AASM waived fees for its member facilities, individual physician fees have not been reduced so far. But the group is looking for more ways to help lower the economic burden on members, Dr. Ramar said.

“I don’t think we’ve ever been in this situation in the 45 years of the academy. This is a once-in-a-lifetime event for challenges we’re going through,” he said. “The board and the leadership realized that, if we’re going to do something, this is the time to do it.”

In addition to waiving the fees, AASM and the AASM Foundation are offering relief funding to state and regional sleep societies and research award recipients through programs created in response to COVID-19.

Some societies said they are not making changes to their dues or fees, some are forgoing cost-of-living fee increases, and some are waiving registration fees for annual meetings.

The American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) waived most members’ registration fees for its annual meeting in November. Typically, that fee would be $500-$800 per member, plus charges for some premium sessions, Michael Blaiss, MD, ACAAI executive medical director, said.

Dr. Blaiss said in an interview that the college thought offering its 6,000 members essentially 25 free hours of CME would benefit them more than waiving annual membership dues, which are about $425 for physicians in the United States.

If the pandemic stretches through 2021, Dr. Blaiss said, “We can survive this. I’m not worried about that at all.”

But he acknowledged the painful effect on medical societies.

“I don’t think any organization would tell you it’s not having an effect on their income,” he said. “I know it is for us and for virtually any medical organization. A high percentage of income comes from the annual meeting.”

Waiving dues has not been a high priority among members in communications so far, Blaiss said.

American Academy of Dermatology President Bruce H. Thiers, MD, said in an interview that there will be no cost-of-living increase for 2021 dues, and AAD members can request a reduction in dues, which will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

“We understand that many members will have to make tough financial decisions,” he said.

In addition, AAD, which has more than 20,000 members, is exploring payment options to help members spread out the cost of membership.
 

ACP extends membership

The American College of Physicians, whose membership cycle starts in July, did not reduce dues but extended membership at no cost for 3 months through September to its 163,000 members, Phil Masters, MD, ACP’s vice president of membership, said in an interview.

It also expanded its educational offerings related to the pandemic, including webinars on physician wellness and issues regarding telemedicine.

He said expanding educational resources rather than waiving dues was an intentional decision after much discussion because “we’re primarily a services resource organization.”

Membership data are still being calculated, but early indications are that membership is not increasing this year, after seeing annual growth of about 2%-2.5%, Dr. Masters said. He noted that income is down “by several percent.” Annual membership dues average about $500 for physicians who have been practicing for 10 years.

“We’re well positioned to tolerate the ups and downs,” he said, but he acknowledged that “there’s no question the financial impact has been devastating on some practices.”

Like some other associations, ACP decided to cancel this year’s annual meeting, which had been planned for April. The 2021 annual meeting will be conducted online from April 29 to May 1.

Smaller organizations that rely heavily on income from the annual meeting will be severely challenged the longer the pandemic continues, Dr. Masters said.

The decision is not as simple as whether to reduce or eliminate dues, he noted. Organizations will have to reexamine their missions and structure their fees and offerings according to the needs of members.

“It’s a balance in doing things for the community at large and balancing the need to be sensitive to financial implications,” Dr. Masters said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19’s toll on member facilities pushed the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) recently to take a sizable gamble.

AASM announced in September that it would waive facility fees at all 2,648 AASM-accredited sleep facilities for 2021.

At $1,800-$2,600 for each facility, that will mean lost revenue of between $4.8 million and $6.9 million, but it’s a risk the academy felt it had to take.

AASM President Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, said in an interview that they are betting on the future of the field.

An internal survey of members, he said, found that nearly half (46%) of the 551 respondents thought they might have to close by the end of the year.

In addition, 66% reported a lower patient volume in the past month, and 36% reported that their practice or facility had to apply for loans or other financial assistance because of COVID-19, AASM said in its press release.

“We are hoping that if we help our members through this, they will be there for our patients,” Dr. Ramar said.

Other medical societies also are weighing options, straddling the line between needing income to provide resources for members but being acutely aware of the financial toll the pandemic is taking, according to one sampling.

As previously reported, primary care practices are projected to lose more than $68,000 in revenue per full-time physician in 2020, after steep drops in office visits and the collection of fees from March to May, according to a study led by researchers in the Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Those losses were calculated without considering a potential second wave of COVID-19 this year, the authors noted.
 

‘We can survive this’

Although AASM waived fees for its member facilities, individual physician fees have not been reduced so far. But the group is looking for more ways to help lower the economic burden on members, Dr. Ramar said.

“I don’t think we’ve ever been in this situation in the 45 years of the academy. This is a once-in-a-lifetime event for challenges we’re going through,” he said. “The board and the leadership realized that, if we’re going to do something, this is the time to do it.”

In addition to waiving the fees, AASM and the AASM Foundation are offering relief funding to state and regional sleep societies and research award recipients through programs created in response to COVID-19.

Some societies said they are not making changes to their dues or fees, some are forgoing cost-of-living fee increases, and some are waiving registration fees for annual meetings.

The American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) waived most members’ registration fees for its annual meeting in November. Typically, that fee would be $500-$800 per member, plus charges for some premium sessions, Michael Blaiss, MD, ACAAI executive medical director, said.

Dr. Blaiss said in an interview that the college thought offering its 6,000 members essentially 25 free hours of CME would benefit them more than waiving annual membership dues, which are about $425 for physicians in the United States.

If the pandemic stretches through 2021, Dr. Blaiss said, “We can survive this. I’m not worried about that at all.”

But he acknowledged the painful effect on medical societies.

“I don’t think any organization would tell you it’s not having an effect on their income,” he said. “I know it is for us and for virtually any medical organization. A high percentage of income comes from the annual meeting.”

Waiving dues has not been a high priority among members in communications so far, Blaiss said.

American Academy of Dermatology President Bruce H. Thiers, MD, said in an interview that there will be no cost-of-living increase for 2021 dues, and AAD members can request a reduction in dues, which will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

“We understand that many members will have to make tough financial decisions,” he said.

In addition, AAD, which has more than 20,000 members, is exploring payment options to help members spread out the cost of membership.
 

ACP extends membership

The American College of Physicians, whose membership cycle starts in July, did not reduce dues but extended membership at no cost for 3 months through September to its 163,000 members, Phil Masters, MD, ACP’s vice president of membership, said in an interview.

It also expanded its educational offerings related to the pandemic, including webinars on physician wellness and issues regarding telemedicine.

He said expanding educational resources rather than waiving dues was an intentional decision after much discussion because “we’re primarily a services resource organization.”

Membership data are still being calculated, but early indications are that membership is not increasing this year, after seeing annual growth of about 2%-2.5%, Dr. Masters said. He noted that income is down “by several percent.” Annual membership dues average about $500 for physicians who have been practicing for 10 years.

“We’re well positioned to tolerate the ups and downs,” he said, but he acknowledged that “there’s no question the financial impact has been devastating on some practices.”

Like some other associations, ACP decided to cancel this year’s annual meeting, which had been planned for April. The 2021 annual meeting will be conducted online from April 29 to May 1.

Smaller organizations that rely heavily on income from the annual meeting will be severely challenged the longer the pandemic continues, Dr. Masters said.

The decision is not as simple as whether to reduce or eliminate dues, he noted. Organizations will have to reexamine their missions and structure their fees and offerings according to the needs of members.

“It’s a balance in doing things for the community at large and balancing the need to be sensitive to financial implications,” Dr. Masters said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19’s toll on member facilities pushed the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) recently to take a sizable gamble.

AASM announced in September that it would waive facility fees at all 2,648 AASM-accredited sleep facilities for 2021.

At $1,800-$2,600 for each facility, that will mean lost revenue of between $4.8 million and $6.9 million, but it’s a risk the academy felt it had to take.

AASM President Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, said in an interview that they are betting on the future of the field.

An internal survey of members, he said, found that nearly half (46%) of the 551 respondents thought they might have to close by the end of the year.

In addition, 66% reported a lower patient volume in the past month, and 36% reported that their practice or facility had to apply for loans or other financial assistance because of COVID-19, AASM said in its press release.

“We are hoping that if we help our members through this, they will be there for our patients,” Dr. Ramar said.

Other medical societies also are weighing options, straddling the line between needing income to provide resources for members but being acutely aware of the financial toll the pandemic is taking, according to one sampling.

As previously reported, primary care practices are projected to lose more than $68,000 in revenue per full-time physician in 2020, after steep drops in office visits and the collection of fees from March to May, according to a study led by researchers in the Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Those losses were calculated without considering a potential second wave of COVID-19 this year, the authors noted.
 

‘We can survive this’

Although AASM waived fees for its member facilities, individual physician fees have not been reduced so far. But the group is looking for more ways to help lower the economic burden on members, Dr. Ramar said.

“I don’t think we’ve ever been in this situation in the 45 years of the academy. This is a once-in-a-lifetime event for challenges we’re going through,” he said. “The board and the leadership realized that, if we’re going to do something, this is the time to do it.”

In addition to waiving the fees, AASM and the AASM Foundation are offering relief funding to state and regional sleep societies and research award recipients through programs created in response to COVID-19.

Some societies said they are not making changes to their dues or fees, some are forgoing cost-of-living fee increases, and some are waiving registration fees for annual meetings.

The American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) waived most members’ registration fees for its annual meeting in November. Typically, that fee would be $500-$800 per member, plus charges for some premium sessions, Michael Blaiss, MD, ACAAI executive medical director, said.

Dr. Blaiss said in an interview that the college thought offering its 6,000 members essentially 25 free hours of CME would benefit them more than waiving annual membership dues, which are about $425 for physicians in the United States.

If the pandemic stretches through 2021, Dr. Blaiss said, “We can survive this. I’m not worried about that at all.”

But he acknowledged the painful effect on medical societies.

“I don’t think any organization would tell you it’s not having an effect on their income,” he said. “I know it is for us and for virtually any medical organization. A high percentage of income comes from the annual meeting.”

Waiving dues has not been a high priority among members in communications so far, Blaiss said.

American Academy of Dermatology President Bruce H. Thiers, MD, said in an interview that there will be no cost-of-living increase for 2021 dues, and AAD members can request a reduction in dues, which will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

“We understand that many members will have to make tough financial decisions,” he said.

In addition, AAD, which has more than 20,000 members, is exploring payment options to help members spread out the cost of membership.
 

ACP extends membership

The American College of Physicians, whose membership cycle starts in July, did not reduce dues but extended membership at no cost for 3 months through September to its 163,000 members, Phil Masters, MD, ACP’s vice president of membership, said in an interview.

It also expanded its educational offerings related to the pandemic, including webinars on physician wellness and issues regarding telemedicine.

He said expanding educational resources rather than waiving dues was an intentional decision after much discussion because “we’re primarily a services resource organization.”

Membership data are still being calculated, but early indications are that membership is not increasing this year, after seeing annual growth of about 2%-2.5%, Dr. Masters said. He noted that income is down “by several percent.” Annual membership dues average about $500 for physicians who have been practicing for 10 years.

“We’re well positioned to tolerate the ups and downs,” he said, but he acknowledged that “there’s no question the financial impact has been devastating on some practices.”

Like some other associations, ACP decided to cancel this year’s annual meeting, which had been planned for April. The 2021 annual meeting will be conducted online from April 29 to May 1.

Smaller organizations that rely heavily on income from the annual meeting will be severely challenged the longer the pandemic continues, Dr. Masters said.

The decision is not as simple as whether to reduce or eliminate dues, he noted. Organizations will have to reexamine their missions and structure their fees and offerings according to the needs of members.

“It’s a balance in doing things for the community at large and balancing the need to be sensitive to financial implications,” Dr. Masters said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk for increased COVID-19 severity in people with type 1 diabetes appears similar to that of type 2 diabetes, contrary to some official advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The new finding indicates that people with both types should be priority for receiving a vaccine, investigators say.

The study is the first to prospectively evaluate both inpatients and outpatients and to examine COVID-19 severity factors in addition to death in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, and was published online Dec. 2 in Diabetes Care. 

Among the patients, who were seen at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., between March and August of 2020, those with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes had between a three- and fourfold greater risk for COVID-19 hospitalization and greater illness severity compared with people without diabetes after adjustments for age, race, and a number of other risk factors.

This finding is important since as of Dec. 1, 2020, the CDC has classified the diabetes types differently in terms of underlying medical conditions that increase the risk for severe COVID-19.

Adults of any age with type 2 diabetes are considered “at increased risk of severe illness” from the virus that causes COVID-19 whereas the CDC says those with type 1 “might be at an increased risk.”

Lead author of the new paper Justin M. Gregory, MD, said in an interview: “I think this needs revision based on the current evidence. I think the data presented in our study and that of Barron et al. in Lancet Endocrinology 2020 indicate the need to place type 1 diabetes at parity with type 2 diabetes.

“These studies indicate both conditions carry an adjusted odds ratio of three to four when compared with people without diabetes for hospitalization, illness severity, and mortality,” he stressed.
 

Vaccines look promising for patients with diabetes

There were no phase 3 vaccine data available for the vaccine at the time that Dr. Gregory, of the Ian M. Burr Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues were writing their manuscript in late summer, so the article does not mention this.

But now, Dr. Gregory said, “Based on the initial press releases from Pfizer and Moderna, I am now optimistic that these vaccines might mitigate the excess morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 experienced by patients with diabetes.

“I am eager to see what we learn on December 10 and 17 [the scheduled dates for the meetings of the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to review the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively].”

But with the winter pandemic surge in the meantime, “Our investigation suggests that as COVID-19 hospitalizations rise, patients with both type 1 and 2 diabetes will comprise a disproportionately higher number of those admissions and, once hospitalized, demonstrate a greater degree of illness severity,” he and his colleagues said.

“In light of these data, we call on our colleagues to emphasize the importance of social distancing measures and hand hygiene, with particular emphasis on patients with diabetes, including those in the most vulnerable communities whom our study affirms will face the most severe impact.”
 

After adjustments, excess severity risk similar for both diabetes types

The new study data came from electronic health records at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, comprising 137 primary care, urgent care, and hospital facilities where patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the reason for their visit.

Between March 17 and August 7, 2020, 6,451 patients tested positive for COVID-19. Of those, 273 had type 2 diabetes and 40 had type 1 diabetes.

Children younger than 18 years accounted for 20% of those with type 1 diabetes and 9.4% of those without diabetes, but none of the type 2 group. The group with type 2 diabetes was considerably older than the type 1 diabetes and no-diabetes groups, 58 years versus 37 and 33 years, respectively. 

Before adjustment for baseline characteristics that differed between groups, patients with type 1 diabetes appeared to have a risk for hospitalization and greater illness severity that was intermediate between the group with no diabetes and the group with type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

But after adjustment for age, race, sex, hypertension, smoking, and body mass index, people with type 1 diabetes had odds ratios of 3.90 for hospitalization and 3.35 for greater illness severity, which was similar to risk in type 2 diabetes (3.36 and 3.42, respectively), compared to those without diabetes.
 

Deep dive explores COVID-19 severity risk factors in type 1 diabetes

The investigators then conducted a detailed chart review for 37 of the 40 patients with type 1 diabetes and phone surveys with 15 of them.

The majority (28) had not been hospitalized, and only one was hospitalized for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) within 14 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 testing.

This contrasts with a report from the T1D Exchange, in which nearly half of 33 patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 had been hospitalized with DKA. The reason for the discrepancy may be that more severe patients would more likely be referred to the T1D Exchange Registry, Dr. Gregory and colleagues hypothesized.

Clinical factors associated with COVID-19 severity (P < .05) in their study included a prior hypertension diagnosis, higher hemoglobin A1c, at least one prior DKA admission in the past year, and not using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 

Hospitalizations were twice as likely and illness severity nearly twice as great among those with type 1 diabetes who were Black versus White. Just 8% of those with private insurance were hospitalized, compared with 60% of those with public insurance and 67% with no insurance (P = .001).

“Whereas previous reports have indicated proportionally higher rates of hospitalizations from COVID-19 among Black patients and those with public insurance, this study is the first to show a similar finding in the population with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gregory and colleagues wrote.

Only 9% of patients using a CGM were hospitalized versus 47% who used blood glucose meters (P < .016). Similarly, hospitalizations occurred in 6% using an insulin pump versus 33% using multiple daily injections (P < .085).

“Our analysis cannot exclude the possibility that greater amounts of diabetes technology use are a surrogate for higher socioeconomic status,” they noted.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, JDRF, and the Appleby Foundation. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk for increased COVID-19 severity in people with type 1 diabetes appears similar to that of type 2 diabetes, contrary to some official advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The new finding indicates that people with both types should be priority for receiving a vaccine, investigators say.

The study is the first to prospectively evaluate both inpatients and outpatients and to examine COVID-19 severity factors in addition to death in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, and was published online Dec. 2 in Diabetes Care. 

Among the patients, who were seen at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., between March and August of 2020, those with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes had between a three- and fourfold greater risk for COVID-19 hospitalization and greater illness severity compared with people without diabetes after adjustments for age, race, and a number of other risk factors.

This finding is important since as of Dec. 1, 2020, the CDC has classified the diabetes types differently in terms of underlying medical conditions that increase the risk for severe COVID-19.

Adults of any age with type 2 diabetes are considered “at increased risk of severe illness” from the virus that causes COVID-19 whereas the CDC says those with type 1 “might be at an increased risk.”

Lead author of the new paper Justin M. Gregory, MD, said in an interview: “I think this needs revision based on the current evidence. I think the data presented in our study and that of Barron et al. in Lancet Endocrinology 2020 indicate the need to place type 1 diabetes at parity with type 2 diabetes.

“These studies indicate both conditions carry an adjusted odds ratio of three to four when compared with people without diabetes for hospitalization, illness severity, and mortality,” he stressed.
 

Vaccines look promising for patients with diabetes

There were no phase 3 vaccine data available for the vaccine at the time that Dr. Gregory, of the Ian M. Burr Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues were writing their manuscript in late summer, so the article does not mention this.

But now, Dr. Gregory said, “Based on the initial press releases from Pfizer and Moderna, I am now optimistic that these vaccines might mitigate the excess morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 experienced by patients with diabetes.

“I am eager to see what we learn on December 10 and 17 [the scheduled dates for the meetings of the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to review the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively].”

But with the winter pandemic surge in the meantime, “Our investigation suggests that as COVID-19 hospitalizations rise, patients with both type 1 and 2 diabetes will comprise a disproportionately higher number of those admissions and, once hospitalized, demonstrate a greater degree of illness severity,” he and his colleagues said.

“In light of these data, we call on our colleagues to emphasize the importance of social distancing measures and hand hygiene, with particular emphasis on patients with diabetes, including those in the most vulnerable communities whom our study affirms will face the most severe impact.”
 

After adjustments, excess severity risk similar for both diabetes types

The new study data came from electronic health records at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, comprising 137 primary care, urgent care, and hospital facilities where patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the reason for their visit.

Between March 17 and August 7, 2020, 6,451 patients tested positive for COVID-19. Of those, 273 had type 2 diabetes and 40 had type 1 diabetes.

Children younger than 18 years accounted for 20% of those with type 1 diabetes and 9.4% of those without diabetes, but none of the type 2 group. The group with type 2 diabetes was considerably older than the type 1 diabetes and no-diabetes groups, 58 years versus 37 and 33 years, respectively. 

Before adjustment for baseline characteristics that differed between groups, patients with type 1 diabetes appeared to have a risk for hospitalization and greater illness severity that was intermediate between the group with no diabetes and the group with type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

But after adjustment for age, race, sex, hypertension, smoking, and body mass index, people with type 1 diabetes had odds ratios of 3.90 for hospitalization and 3.35 for greater illness severity, which was similar to risk in type 2 diabetes (3.36 and 3.42, respectively), compared to those without diabetes.
 

Deep dive explores COVID-19 severity risk factors in type 1 diabetes

The investigators then conducted a detailed chart review for 37 of the 40 patients with type 1 diabetes and phone surveys with 15 of them.

The majority (28) had not been hospitalized, and only one was hospitalized for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) within 14 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 testing.

This contrasts with a report from the T1D Exchange, in which nearly half of 33 patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 had been hospitalized with DKA. The reason for the discrepancy may be that more severe patients would more likely be referred to the T1D Exchange Registry, Dr. Gregory and colleagues hypothesized.

Clinical factors associated with COVID-19 severity (P < .05) in their study included a prior hypertension diagnosis, higher hemoglobin A1c, at least one prior DKA admission in the past year, and not using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 

Hospitalizations were twice as likely and illness severity nearly twice as great among those with type 1 diabetes who were Black versus White. Just 8% of those with private insurance were hospitalized, compared with 60% of those with public insurance and 67% with no insurance (P = .001).

“Whereas previous reports have indicated proportionally higher rates of hospitalizations from COVID-19 among Black patients and those with public insurance, this study is the first to show a similar finding in the population with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gregory and colleagues wrote.

Only 9% of patients using a CGM were hospitalized versus 47% who used blood glucose meters (P < .016). Similarly, hospitalizations occurred in 6% using an insulin pump versus 33% using multiple daily injections (P < .085).

“Our analysis cannot exclude the possibility that greater amounts of diabetes technology use are a surrogate for higher socioeconomic status,” they noted.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, JDRF, and the Appleby Foundation. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk for increased COVID-19 severity in people with type 1 diabetes appears similar to that of type 2 diabetes, contrary to some official advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The new finding indicates that people with both types should be priority for receiving a vaccine, investigators say.

The study is the first to prospectively evaluate both inpatients and outpatients and to examine COVID-19 severity factors in addition to death in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, and was published online Dec. 2 in Diabetes Care. 

Among the patients, who were seen at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., between March and August of 2020, those with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes had between a three- and fourfold greater risk for COVID-19 hospitalization and greater illness severity compared with people without diabetes after adjustments for age, race, and a number of other risk factors.

This finding is important since as of Dec. 1, 2020, the CDC has classified the diabetes types differently in terms of underlying medical conditions that increase the risk for severe COVID-19.

Adults of any age with type 2 diabetes are considered “at increased risk of severe illness” from the virus that causes COVID-19 whereas the CDC says those with type 1 “might be at an increased risk.”

Lead author of the new paper Justin M. Gregory, MD, said in an interview: “I think this needs revision based on the current evidence. I think the data presented in our study and that of Barron et al. in Lancet Endocrinology 2020 indicate the need to place type 1 diabetes at parity with type 2 diabetes.

“These studies indicate both conditions carry an adjusted odds ratio of three to four when compared with people without diabetes for hospitalization, illness severity, and mortality,” he stressed.
 

Vaccines look promising for patients with diabetes

There were no phase 3 vaccine data available for the vaccine at the time that Dr. Gregory, of the Ian M. Burr Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues were writing their manuscript in late summer, so the article does not mention this.

But now, Dr. Gregory said, “Based on the initial press releases from Pfizer and Moderna, I am now optimistic that these vaccines might mitigate the excess morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 experienced by patients with diabetes.

“I am eager to see what we learn on December 10 and 17 [the scheduled dates for the meetings of the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to review the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively].”

But with the winter pandemic surge in the meantime, “Our investigation suggests that as COVID-19 hospitalizations rise, patients with both type 1 and 2 diabetes will comprise a disproportionately higher number of those admissions and, once hospitalized, demonstrate a greater degree of illness severity,” he and his colleagues said.

“In light of these data, we call on our colleagues to emphasize the importance of social distancing measures and hand hygiene, with particular emphasis on patients with diabetes, including those in the most vulnerable communities whom our study affirms will face the most severe impact.”
 

After adjustments, excess severity risk similar for both diabetes types

The new study data came from electronic health records at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, comprising 137 primary care, urgent care, and hospital facilities where patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the reason for their visit.

Between March 17 and August 7, 2020, 6,451 patients tested positive for COVID-19. Of those, 273 had type 2 diabetes and 40 had type 1 diabetes.

Children younger than 18 years accounted for 20% of those with type 1 diabetes and 9.4% of those without diabetes, but none of the type 2 group. The group with type 2 diabetes was considerably older than the type 1 diabetes and no-diabetes groups, 58 years versus 37 and 33 years, respectively. 

Before adjustment for baseline characteristics that differed between groups, patients with type 1 diabetes appeared to have a risk for hospitalization and greater illness severity that was intermediate between the group with no diabetes and the group with type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

But after adjustment for age, race, sex, hypertension, smoking, and body mass index, people with type 1 diabetes had odds ratios of 3.90 for hospitalization and 3.35 for greater illness severity, which was similar to risk in type 2 diabetes (3.36 and 3.42, respectively), compared to those without diabetes.
 

Deep dive explores COVID-19 severity risk factors in type 1 diabetes

The investigators then conducted a detailed chart review for 37 of the 40 patients with type 1 diabetes and phone surveys with 15 of them.

The majority (28) had not been hospitalized, and only one was hospitalized for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) within 14 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 testing.

This contrasts with a report from the T1D Exchange, in which nearly half of 33 patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 had been hospitalized with DKA. The reason for the discrepancy may be that more severe patients would more likely be referred to the T1D Exchange Registry, Dr. Gregory and colleagues hypothesized.

Clinical factors associated with COVID-19 severity (P < .05) in their study included a prior hypertension diagnosis, higher hemoglobin A1c, at least one prior DKA admission in the past year, and not using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 

Hospitalizations were twice as likely and illness severity nearly twice as great among those with type 1 diabetes who were Black versus White. Just 8% of those with private insurance were hospitalized, compared with 60% of those with public insurance and 67% with no insurance (P = .001).

“Whereas previous reports have indicated proportionally higher rates of hospitalizations from COVID-19 among Black patients and those with public insurance, this study is the first to show a similar finding in the population with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gregory and colleagues wrote.

Only 9% of patients using a CGM were hospitalized versus 47% who used blood glucose meters (P < .016). Similarly, hospitalizations occurred in 6% using an insulin pump versus 33% using multiple daily injections (P < .085).

“Our analysis cannot exclude the possibility that greater amounts of diabetes technology use are a surrogate for higher socioeconomic status,” they noted.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, JDRF, and the Appleby Foundation. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

New technologies being developed at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Boston, that dermatologists will likely be using in the next 5 years include injection of ice slurry to remove fat, a cooling device for benign pigmented lesions, and a focused laser beam that delivers energy without injuring the skin’s surface.

During a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Lilit Garibyan, MD, PhD, discussed findings from a swine study published online in January 2020 that used an injectable physiologic ice slurry for the nonsurgical removal of fat, a technology that could give CoolSculpting a run for its money. “It does lead to more efficient and effective cryolipolysis,” said Dr. Garibyan, the lead study author who is an assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard University, and director of The Magic Wand Initiative at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “The treatment of fat tissue with ice slurry injection can be done in less than 1 minute, as opposed to an hour of cooling with CoolSculpting. In addition, because cooling is delivered directly into target tissue, it is more effective.”

For the study, she and her colleagues at the Wellman Center injected the slurry – a mix of ice, saline, and glycol – into the flanks of swine and followed them for up to 8 weeks. They used ultrasound imaging to show the location of the fat loss and to quantify it. The researchers observed about 40%-50% loss of fat in the treated area, compared with a 60% fat gain in swine who served as controls. “This is because the pig is growing and gaining weight, so the fat is increasing,” she explained.

Gross histologic images also showed fat loss in the subcutaneous fat tissue of treated swine, but not in controls. “When we quantified this loss, there was about a 60% loss of fat after a single injection of ice slurry in the subcutaneous fat,” Dr. Garibyan said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “On histology there was loss of fat in the subcutaneous area and it was replaced by new collagen. No damage to surrounding skin or muscle tissue was seen.”

She characterized the approach as “a minimally invasive and novel method of adipose tissue removal. It’s very simple, because it’s just a simple injection, and it’s very efficient and effective in fat removal. Most importantly, it can target any anatomic site accessible with a needle.”

Human studies are currently underway.

Another emerging technology Dr. Garibyan discussed is a novel controlled skin cooling device for the treatment of benign pigmented lesions. The approach, known as Cryomodulation, was invented by R. Rox Anderson, MD, Dieter Manstein, MD, PhD, and Henry HL Chan, MD, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is being commercialized by R2 Technologies. It delivers precise controlled and titratable freezing of benign pigmented lesions without damage to the epidermal barrier. It has been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration, and R2 Technologies plans to launch its first commercial product in the United States in December 2020.

The handpiece of the device, which is placed on top of the skin, provides localized and controlled freezing to targeted benign pigmented lesions. “The cold, or the freeze, is delivered to where the melanocytes reside,” Dr. Garibyan said. “The ice nucleation essentially pauses melanin production. As cell turnover occurs, cells that are melanin-free migrate upward and renew freshly healthy skin. So, melanocyte function is still preserved but there is no destruction to the epidermal barrier. This technology is totally color blind, and there is no persistent inflammatory response.”

After this treatment, histology reveals a reduction of epidermal melanin without destruction of melanocytes. The treatment impairs melanocyte transfer, but not the melanocytes. “Clinically, that is seen as lightening of the skin,” she said. More than 550 patients have been treated with Cryomodulation to demonstrate its safety and effectiveness, described in a study published in 2019, and an ASLMS e-poster.

The final technology Dr. Garibyan discussed is a novel device for removing dermal pigment with a highly focused laser beam. “The problem with current lasers is that the maximum absorption of energy happens at the dermal/epidermal junction,” she said. “This not only increases the risk of epidermal injury, especially in skin of color, but it also leaves very little energy to reach the pigmented target tissue or cells. In addition, there is scattering in the skin, which also reduces the amount of fluence or energy that can reach the target depth, therefore reducing the efficacy of treatment with currently available laser.”

The investigative focused laser beam with high-speed scanning creates a large differential between the fluence at the surface and the fluence at the target, which improves safety. “It’s able to deliver enhanced energy to the target,” she said. “Therefore it’s more effective than destroying the target pigmented cells. There is no injury outside of the focal point, so it offers improved safety, efficacy, and spatial selectivity. The end result on histology is a selective destruction of the pigmented cells, which are typically melanophages.”

Dr. Garibyan predicted that this device will be an ideal therapy for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and for melasma, “as no effective therapies are available for those conditions.”

She disclosed that she has received royalties/inventorship assigned to MGH. She holds equity in, is a consultant to, and is a member of the scientific advisory board of Brixton Biosciences. She is a consultant to Vyome Therapeutics, Blossom Innovations, Aegle Therapeutics, and ClearifiRx.

[email protected]

New technologies being developed at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Boston, that dermatologists will likely be using in the next 5 years include injection of ice slurry to remove fat, a cooling device for benign pigmented lesions, and a focused laser beam that delivers energy without injuring the skin’s surface.

During a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Lilit Garibyan, MD, PhD, discussed findings from a swine study published online in January 2020 that used an injectable physiologic ice slurry for the nonsurgical removal of fat, a technology that could give CoolSculpting a run for its money. “It does lead to more efficient and effective cryolipolysis,” said Dr. Garibyan, the lead study author who is an assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard University, and director of The Magic Wand Initiative at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “The treatment of fat tissue with ice slurry injection can be done in less than 1 minute, as opposed to an hour of cooling with CoolSculpting. In addition, because cooling is delivered directly into target tissue, it is more effective.”

For the study, she and her colleagues at the Wellman Center injected the slurry – a mix of ice, saline, and glycol – into the flanks of swine and followed them for up to 8 weeks. They used ultrasound imaging to show the location of the fat loss and to quantify it. The researchers observed about 40%-50% loss of fat in the treated area, compared with a 60% fat gain in swine who served as controls. “This is because the pig is growing and gaining weight, so the fat is increasing,” she explained.

Gross histologic images also showed fat loss in the subcutaneous fat tissue of treated swine, but not in controls. “When we quantified this loss, there was about a 60% loss of fat after a single injection of ice slurry in the subcutaneous fat,” Dr. Garibyan said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “On histology there was loss of fat in the subcutaneous area and it was replaced by new collagen. No damage to surrounding skin or muscle tissue was seen.”

She characterized the approach as “a minimally invasive and novel method of adipose tissue removal. It’s very simple, because it’s just a simple injection, and it’s very efficient and effective in fat removal. Most importantly, it can target any anatomic site accessible with a needle.”

Human studies are currently underway.

Another emerging technology Dr. Garibyan discussed is a novel controlled skin cooling device for the treatment of benign pigmented lesions. The approach, known as Cryomodulation, was invented by R. Rox Anderson, MD, Dieter Manstein, MD, PhD, and Henry HL Chan, MD, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is being commercialized by R2 Technologies. It delivers precise controlled and titratable freezing of benign pigmented lesions without damage to the epidermal barrier. It has been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration, and R2 Technologies plans to launch its first commercial product in the United States in December 2020.

The handpiece of the device, which is placed on top of the skin, provides localized and controlled freezing to targeted benign pigmented lesions. “The cold, or the freeze, is delivered to where the melanocytes reside,” Dr. Garibyan said. “The ice nucleation essentially pauses melanin production. As cell turnover occurs, cells that are melanin-free migrate upward and renew freshly healthy skin. So, melanocyte function is still preserved but there is no destruction to the epidermal barrier. This technology is totally color blind, and there is no persistent inflammatory response.”

After this treatment, histology reveals a reduction of epidermal melanin without destruction of melanocytes. The treatment impairs melanocyte transfer, but not the melanocytes. “Clinically, that is seen as lightening of the skin,” she said. More than 550 patients have been treated with Cryomodulation to demonstrate its safety and effectiveness, described in a study published in 2019, and an ASLMS e-poster.

The final technology Dr. Garibyan discussed is a novel device for removing dermal pigment with a highly focused laser beam. “The problem with current lasers is that the maximum absorption of energy happens at the dermal/epidermal junction,” she said. “This not only increases the risk of epidermal injury, especially in skin of color, but it also leaves very little energy to reach the pigmented target tissue or cells. In addition, there is scattering in the skin, which also reduces the amount of fluence or energy that can reach the target depth, therefore reducing the efficacy of treatment with currently available laser.”

The investigative focused laser beam with high-speed scanning creates a large differential between the fluence at the surface and the fluence at the target, which improves safety. “It’s able to deliver enhanced energy to the target,” she said. “Therefore it’s more effective than destroying the target pigmented cells. There is no injury outside of the focal point, so it offers improved safety, efficacy, and spatial selectivity. The end result on histology is a selective destruction of the pigmented cells, which are typically melanophages.”

Dr. Garibyan predicted that this device will be an ideal therapy for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and for melasma, “as no effective therapies are available for those conditions.”

She disclosed that she has received royalties/inventorship assigned to MGH. She holds equity in, is a consultant to, and is a member of the scientific advisory board of Brixton Biosciences. She is a consultant to Vyome Therapeutics, Blossom Innovations, Aegle Therapeutics, and ClearifiRx.

[email protected]

New technologies being developed at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Boston, that dermatologists will likely be using in the next 5 years include injection of ice slurry to remove fat, a cooling device for benign pigmented lesions, and a focused laser beam that delivers energy without injuring the skin’s surface.

During a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Lilit Garibyan, MD, PhD, discussed findings from a swine study published online in January 2020 that used an injectable physiologic ice slurry for the nonsurgical removal of fat, a technology that could give CoolSculpting a run for its money. “It does lead to more efficient and effective cryolipolysis,” said Dr. Garibyan, the lead study author who is an assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard University, and director of The Magic Wand Initiative at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “The treatment of fat tissue with ice slurry injection can be done in less than 1 minute, as opposed to an hour of cooling with CoolSculpting. In addition, because cooling is delivered directly into target tissue, it is more effective.”

For the study, she and her colleagues at the Wellman Center injected the slurry – a mix of ice, saline, and glycol – into the flanks of swine and followed them for up to 8 weeks. They used ultrasound imaging to show the location of the fat loss and to quantify it. The researchers observed about 40%-50% loss of fat in the treated area, compared with a 60% fat gain in swine who served as controls. “This is because the pig is growing and gaining weight, so the fat is increasing,” she explained.

Gross histologic images also showed fat loss in the subcutaneous fat tissue of treated swine, but not in controls. “When we quantified this loss, there was about a 60% loss of fat after a single injection of ice slurry in the subcutaneous fat,” Dr. Garibyan said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “On histology there was loss of fat in the subcutaneous area and it was replaced by new collagen. No damage to surrounding skin or muscle tissue was seen.”

She characterized the approach as “a minimally invasive and novel method of adipose tissue removal. It’s very simple, because it’s just a simple injection, and it’s very efficient and effective in fat removal. Most importantly, it can target any anatomic site accessible with a needle.”

Human studies are currently underway.

Another emerging technology Dr. Garibyan discussed is a novel controlled skin cooling device for the treatment of benign pigmented lesions. The approach, known as Cryomodulation, was invented by R. Rox Anderson, MD, Dieter Manstein, MD, PhD, and Henry HL Chan, MD, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is being commercialized by R2 Technologies. It delivers precise controlled and titratable freezing of benign pigmented lesions without damage to the epidermal barrier. It has been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration, and R2 Technologies plans to launch its first commercial product in the United States in December 2020.

The handpiece of the device, which is placed on top of the skin, provides localized and controlled freezing to targeted benign pigmented lesions. “The cold, or the freeze, is delivered to where the melanocytes reside,” Dr. Garibyan said. “The ice nucleation essentially pauses melanin production. As cell turnover occurs, cells that are melanin-free migrate upward and renew freshly healthy skin. So, melanocyte function is still preserved but there is no destruction to the epidermal barrier. This technology is totally color blind, and there is no persistent inflammatory response.”

After this treatment, histology reveals a reduction of epidermal melanin without destruction of melanocytes. The treatment impairs melanocyte transfer, but not the melanocytes. “Clinically, that is seen as lightening of the skin,” she said. More than 550 patients have been treated with Cryomodulation to demonstrate its safety and effectiveness, described in a study published in 2019, and an ASLMS e-poster.

The final technology Dr. Garibyan discussed is a novel device for removing dermal pigment with a highly focused laser beam. “The problem with current lasers is that the maximum absorption of energy happens at the dermal/epidermal junction,” she said. “This not only increases the risk of epidermal injury, especially in skin of color, but it also leaves very little energy to reach the pigmented target tissue or cells. In addition, there is scattering in the skin, which also reduces the amount of fluence or energy that can reach the target depth, therefore reducing the efficacy of treatment with currently available laser.”

The investigative focused laser beam with high-speed scanning creates a large differential between the fluence at the surface and the fluence at the target, which improves safety. “It’s able to deliver enhanced energy to the target,” she said. “Therefore it’s more effective than destroying the target pigmented cells. There is no injury outside of the focal point, so it offers improved safety, efficacy, and spatial selectivity. The end result on histology is a selective destruction of the pigmented cells, which are typically melanophages.”

Dr. Garibyan predicted that this device will be an ideal therapy for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and for melasma, “as no effective therapies are available for those conditions.”

She disclosed that she has received royalties/inventorship assigned to MGH. She holds equity in, is a consultant to, and is a member of the scientific advisory board of Brixton Biosciences. She is a consultant to Vyome Therapeutics, Blossom Innovations, Aegle Therapeutics, and ClearifiRx.

[email protected]

When a new phenotype approach to the diagnosis of rosacea was proposed 2 years ago, this simpler and more accurate method was accompanied by several corollary advantages, including a more rational approach to treatment and better methods of measuring treatment efficacy, according to an expert speaking at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.

“By looking at rosacea in a more simple way – but a more accurate way – we are able to track what happens [to key features] over time,” explained Jerry Tan, MD, of the University of Western Ontario, London.

The newer method of diagnosing rosacea, which relies on phenotyping rather than subtyping, focuses on symptoms and their clinical impact. With the previous method of subtyping, many rosacea patients failed to fit neatly into any of the four categories, producing confusion and diverting attention from troublesome symptoms.

“Rosacea patients often present with a range of features that span multiple subtypes or progress between them,” Dr. Tan explained. The risk is not just a delay in diagnosis but a failure to focus on symptoms patients find most bothersome.

The previous diagnostic criteria for rosacea, published in 2002, identified primary and secondary symptoms within its four subtypes. The new diagnostic criteria, endorsed by the National Rosacea Society and published in 2018, rely on phenotypes defined by diagnostic, major, and minor symptoms. Rather than the four previous subtypes, which were erythematotelangiectatic, papulopustular, phymatous, and ocular, the phenotypes facilitate diagnosis in patients with mixed features.

By replacing “the old thought process of subtyping” with a newer focus on phenotypes, the updated criteria were “aimed toward accuracy, simplicity and practicality,” Dr. Tan said.

Moreover, without squeezing patients into subgroups where they do not neatly fit, the new criteria draw attention to the specific symptoms that bring patients to the clinician.

The phenotype approach to treatment strategies was reflected in a systematic review of treatments based on phenotypes that was published in 2019, not long after the new classification system became available. In this review, coauthored by Dr. Tan, the GRADE certainty-of-evidence approach was employed to identify effective therapies, matching specific symptoms with specific therapies such as low-dose isotretinoin for papules or omega-3 fatty acids for dry eyes.

Based on a patient-centric approach that emphasizes control of key symptoms, Dr. Tan also described a method of documenting the severity of major and minor symptoms at each visit. With this method, called a rosacea patient tracker, patients and physicians can determine whether therapies are effective against the signs and symptoms of disease that they find most burdensome, according to Dr. Tan, who was the first author of an article he cited as a reference to this phenotype-based methodology.

Overall, the phenotype approach to rosacea “rationalizes treatment,” he said.

Specifically, the heterogeneity of symptoms in rosacea is mirrored in the heterogeneity of underlying pathophysiology. According to Dr. Tan, the upregulation of cytokines for inflammation, of angiogenic pathways for vascular symptoms, and of matrix metalloproteinases for tissue remodeling are all implicated in rosacea but drive different types of symptoms. While appropriate skin care and efforts to identify and minimize symptom triggers is appropriate for all patients, phenotypes provide a guide to the most appropriate therapies.

He said he hopes that the focus on phenotypes will draw attention to differences in these pathophysiological mechanisms. According to Dr. Tan, evaluating rosacea from the perspective of phenotypes has represented an important paradigm shift that extends beyond diagnosis.

“The move to the phenotype approach is hopefully simpler, more accurate, and more relevant,” Dr. Tan said.

This same approach has been advocated by others, including Esther J. van Zurren, MD, professor of dermatology at Leiden University Medical Centre in the Netherlands, the lead author of the 2018 systematic review article discussed by Dr. Tan. In this review article on the phenotype approach, specific strategies were recommended for specific symptoms on the basis of grading by an international group of experts that included Dr. Tan, a coauthor.

“These strategies should be directed toward achieving improvements in general well-being by targeting those aspects most bothersome to the patient,” the article advises. Like Dr. Tan, she considers this phenotype-based approach to diagnosis and treatment to be a meaningful clinical advance over the guidelines published in 2002.

“Management strategies for people with rosacea should include phenotype-based treatments,” she agreed, adding that specific choices should be made on the basis of these phenotypes “instead of the previous subtype classification.”

The meeting was jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
 

When a new phenotype approach to the diagnosis of rosacea was proposed 2 years ago, this simpler and more accurate method was accompanied by several corollary advantages, including a more rational approach to treatment and better methods of measuring treatment efficacy, according to an expert speaking at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.

“By looking at rosacea in a more simple way – but a more accurate way – we are able to track what happens [to key features] over time,” explained Jerry Tan, MD, of the University of Western Ontario, London.

The newer method of diagnosing rosacea, which relies on phenotyping rather than subtyping, focuses on symptoms and their clinical impact. With the previous method of subtyping, many rosacea patients failed to fit neatly into any of the four categories, producing confusion and diverting attention from troublesome symptoms.

“Rosacea patients often present with a range of features that span multiple subtypes or progress between them,” Dr. Tan explained. The risk is not just a delay in diagnosis but a failure to focus on symptoms patients find most bothersome.

The previous diagnostic criteria for rosacea, published in 2002, identified primary and secondary symptoms within its four subtypes. The new diagnostic criteria, endorsed by the National Rosacea Society and published in 2018, rely on phenotypes defined by diagnostic, major, and minor symptoms. Rather than the four previous subtypes, which were erythematotelangiectatic, papulopustular, phymatous, and ocular, the phenotypes facilitate diagnosis in patients with mixed features.

By replacing “the old thought process of subtyping” with a newer focus on phenotypes, the updated criteria were “aimed toward accuracy, simplicity and practicality,” Dr. Tan said.

Moreover, without squeezing patients into subgroups where they do not neatly fit, the new criteria draw attention to the specific symptoms that bring patients to the clinician.

The phenotype approach to treatment strategies was reflected in a systematic review of treatments based on phenotypes that was published in 2019, not long after the new classification system became available. In this review, coauthored by Dr. Tan, the GRADE certainty-of-evidence approach was employed to identify effective therapies, matching specific symptoms with specific therapies such as low-dose isotretinoin for papules or omega-3 fatty acids for dry eyes.

Based on a patient-centric approach that emphasizes control of key symptoms, Dr. Tan also described a method of documenting the severity of major and minor symptoms at each visit. With this method, called a rosacea patient tracker, patients and physicians can determine whether therapies are effective against the signs and symptoms of disease that they find most burdensome, according to Dr. Tan, who was the first author of an article he cited as a reference to this phenotype-based methodology.

Overall, the phenotype approach to rosacea “rationalizes treatment,” he said.

Specifically, the heterogeneity of symptoms in rosacea is mirrored in the heterogeneity of underlying pathophysiology. According to Dr. Tan, the upregulation of cytokines for inflammation, of angiogenic pathways for vascular symptoms, and of matrix metalloproteinases for tissue remodeling are all implicated in rosacea but drive different types of symptoms. While appropriate skin care and efforts to identify and minimize symptom triggers is appropriate for all patients, phenotypes provide a guide to the most appropriate therapies.

He said he hopes that the focus on phenotypes will draw attention to differences in these pathophysiological mechanisms. According to Dr. Tan, evaluating rosacea from the perspective of phenotypes has represented an important paradigm shift that extends beyond diagnosis.

“The move to the phenotype approach is hopefully simpler, more accurate, and more relevant,” Dr. Tan said.

This same approach has been advocated by others, including Esther J. van Zurren, MD, professor of dermatology at Leiden University Medical Centre in the Netherlands, the lead author of the 2018 systematic review article discussed by Dr. Tan. In this review article on the phenotype approach, specific strategies were recommended for specific symptoms on the basis of grading by an international group of experts that included Dr. Tan, a coauthor.

“These strategies should be directed toward achieving improvements in general well-being by targeting those aspects most bothersome to the patient,” the article advises. Like Dr. Tan, she considers this phenotype-based approach to diagnosis and treatment to be a meaningful clinical advance over the guidelines published in 2002.

“Management strategies for people with rosacea should include phenotype-based treatments,” she agreed, adding that specific choices should be made on the basis of these phenotypes “instead of the previous subtype classification.”

The meeting was jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
 

When a new phenotype approach to the diagnosis of rosacea was proposed 2 years ago, this simpler and more accurate method was accompanied by several corollary advantages, including a more rational approach to treatment and better methods of measuring treatment efficacy, according to an expert speaking at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.

“By looking at rosacea in a more simple way – but a more accurate way – we are able to track what happens [to key features] over time,” explained Jerry Tan, MD, of the University of Western Ontario, London.

The newer method of diagnosing rosacea, which relies on phenotyping rather than subtyping, focuses on symptoms and their clinical impact. With the previous method of subtyping, many rosacea patients failed to fit neatly into any of the four categories, producing confusion and diverting attention from troublesome symptoms.

“Rosacea patients often present with a range of features that span multiple subtypes or progress between them,” Dr. Tan explained. The risk is not just a delay in diagnosis but a failure to focus on symptoms patients find most bothersome.

The previous diagnostic criteria for rosacea, published in 2002, identified primary and secondary symptoms within its four subtypes. The new diagnostic criteria, endorsed by the National Rosacea Society and published in 2018, rely on phenotypes defined by diagnostic, major, and minor symptoms. Rather than the four previous subtypes, which were erythematotelangiectatic, papulopustular, phymatous, and ocular, the phenotypes facilitate diagnosis in patients with mixed features.

By replacing “the old thought process of subtyping” with a newer focus on phenotypes, the updated criteria were “aimed toward accuracy, simplicity and practicality,” Dr. Tan said.

Moreover, without squeezing patients into subgroups where they do not neatly fit, the new criteria draw attention to the specific symptoms that bring patients to the clinician.

The phenotype approach to treatment strategies was reflected in a systematic review of treatments based on phenotypes that was published in 2019, not long after the new classification system became available. In this review, coauthored by Dr. Tan, the GRADE certainty-of-evidence approach was employed to identify effective therapies, matching specific symptoms with specific therapies such as low-dose isotretinoin for papules or omega-3 fatty acids for dry eyes.

Based on a patient-centric approach that emphasizes control of key symptoms, Dr. Tan also described a method of documenting the severity of major and minor symptoms at each visit. With this method, called a rosacea patient tracker, patients and physicians can determine whether therapies are effective against the signs and symptoms of disease that they find most burdensome, according to Dr. Tan, who was the first author of an article he cited as a reference to this phenotype-based methodology.

Overall, the phenotype approach to rosacea “rationalizes treatment,” he said.

Specifically, the heterogeneity of symptoms in rosacea is mirrored in the heterogeneity of underlying pathophysiology. According to Dr. Tan, the upregulation of cytokines for inflammation, of angiogenic pathways for vascular symptoms, and of matrix metalloproteinases for tissue remodeling are all implicated in rosacea but drive different types of symptoms. While appropriate skin care and efforts to identify and minimize symptom triggers is appropriate for all patients, phenotypes provide a guide to the most appropriate therapies.

He said he hopes that the focus on phenotypes will draw attention to differences in these pathophysiological mechanisms. According to Dr. Tan, evaluating rosacea from the perspective of phenotypes has represented an important paradigm shift that extends beyond diagnosis.

“The move to the phenotype approach is hopefully simpler, more accurate, and more relevant,” Dr. Tan said.

This same approach has been advocated by others, including Esther J. van Zurren, MD, professor of dermatology at Leiden University Medical Centre in the Netherlands, the lead author of the 2018 systematic review article discussed by Dr. Tan. In this review article on the phenotype approach, specific strategies were recommended for specific symptoms on the basis of grading by an international group of experts that included Dr. Tan, a coauthor.

“These strategies should be directed toward achieving improvements in general well-being by targeting those aspects most bothersome to the patient,” the article advises. Like Dr. Tan, she considers this phenotype-based approach to diagnosis and treatment to be a meaningful clinical advance over the guidelines published in 2002.

“Management strategies for people with rosacea should include phenotype-based treatments,” she agreed, adding that specific choices should be made on the basis of these phenotypes “instead of the previous subtype classification.”

The meeting was jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education. This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
 

Americans have made no secret of their skepticism of COVID-19 vaccines this year, with fears of political interference and a “warp speed” timeline blunting confidence in the shots. As recently as September, nearly half of U.S. adults said they didn’t intend to be inoculated.

But with two promising vaccines primed for release, likely within weeks, experts in ethics and immunization behavior say they expect attitudes to shift quickly from widespread hesitancy to urgent, even heated demand.

“People talk about the antivaccine people being able to kind of squelch uptake. I don’t see that happening,” Dr. Paul Offit, MD, a vaccinologist with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told viewers of a recent JAMA Network webinar. “This, to me, is more like the Beanie Baby phenomenon. The attractiveness of a limited edition.”

Reports that vaccines produced by drugmakers Pfizer and BioNTech and Moderna appear to be safe and effective, along with the deliberate emphasis on science-based guidance from the incoming Biden administration, are likely to reverse uncertainty in a big way, said Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University.

“I think that’s going to flip the trust issue,” he said.

The shift is already apparent. A new poll by the Pew Research Center found that by the end of November 60% of Americans said they would get a vaccine for the coronavirus. This month, even as a federal advisory group met to hash out guidelines for vaccine distribution, a long list of advocacy groups – from those representing home-based health workers and community health centers to patients with kidney disease – were lobbying state and federal officials in hopes their constituents would be prioritized for the first scarce doses.

“As we get closer to the vaccine being a reality, there’s a lot of jockeying, to be sure,” said Katie Smith Sloan, chief executive of LeadingAge, a nonprofit organization pushing for staff and patients at long-term care centers to be included in the highest-priority category.

Certainly, some consumers remain wary, said Rupali Limaye, PhD, a social and behavioral health scientist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. Fears that drugmakers and regulators might cut corners to speed a vaccine linger, even as details of the trials become public and the review process is made more transparent. Some health care workers, who are at the front of the line for the shots, are not eager to go first.

“There will be people who will say, ‘I will wait a little bit more for safety data,” Dr. Limaye said.

But those doubts likely will recede once the vaccines are approved for use and begin to circulate broadly, said Dr. Offit, who sits on the Food and Drug Administration advisory panel set to review the requests for emergency authorization Pfizer and Moderna have submitted.

He predicted demand for the COVID vaccines could rival the clamor that occurred in 2004, when production problems caused a severe shortage of flu shots just as influenza season began. That led to long lines, rationed doses and ethical debates over distribution.

“That was a highly desired vaccine,” Dr. Offit said. “I think in many ways that might happen here.”

Initially, vaccine supplies will be tight, with federal officials planning to ship 6.4 million doses within 24 hours of FDA authorization and up to 40 million doses by the end of the year. The CDC panel recommended that the first shots go to the 21 million health care workers in the United States and 3 million nursing home staff and residents, before being rolled out to other groups based on a hierarchy of risk factors.

Even before any vaccine is available, some people are trying to boost their chances of access, said Allison Kempe, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Coloradoat Denver, Aurora, and expert in vaccine dissemination. “People have called me and said, ‘How can I get the vaccine?’” she said. “I think that not everyone will be happy to wait, that’s for sure. I don’t think there will be rioting in the streets, but there may be pressure brought to bear.”

That likely will include emotional debates over how, when, and to whom next doses should be distributed, said Dr. Caplan. Under the CDC recommendations, vulnerable groups next in line include 87 million workers whose jobs are deemed “essential” – a broad and ill-defined category – as well as 53 million adults age 65 and older.

“We’re going to have some fights about high-risk groups,” Dr. Caplan said.

The conversations will be complicated. Should prisoners, who have little control over their COVID exposure, get vaccine priority? How about professional sports teams, whose performance could bolster society’s overall morale? And what about residents of facilities providing care for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, who are three times more likely to die from COVID-19 than the general population?

Control over vaccination allocation rests with the states, so that’s where the biggest conflicts will occur, Dr. Caplan said. “It’s a short fight, I hope, in the sense in which it gets done in a few months, but I think it will be pretty vocal.”

Once vaccine supplies become more plentiful, perhaps by May or June, another consideration is sure to boost demand: requirements for proof of COVID vaccination for work and travel.

“It’s inevitable that you’re going to see immunity passports or that you’re required to show a certificate on the train, airplane, bus, or subway,” Dr. Caplan predicted. “Probably also to enter certain hospitals, probably to enter certain restaurants and government facilities.”

But with a grueling winter surge ahead, and new predictions that COVID-19 will fell as many as 450,000 Americans by February, the tragic reality of the disease will no doubt fuel ample demand for vaccination.

“People now know someone who has gotten COVID, who has been hospitalized or has unfortunately died,” Dr. Limaye said.

“We’re all seeing this now,” said Dr. Kempe. “Even deniers are beginning to see what this illness can do.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Americans have made no secret of their skepticism of COVID-19 vaccines this year, with fears of political interference and a “warp speed” timeline blunting confidence in the shots. As recently as September, nearly half of U.S. adults said they didn’t intend to be inoculated.

But with two promising vaccines primed for release, likely within weeks, experts in ethics and immunization behavior say they expect attitudes to shift quickly from widespread hesitancy to urgent, even heated demand.

“People talk about the antivaccine people being able to kind of squelch uptake. I don’t see that happening,” Dr. Paul Offit, MD, a vaccinologist with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told viewers of a recent JAMA Network webinar. “This, to me, is more like the Beanie Baby phenomenon. The attractiveness of a limited edition.”

Reports that vaccines produced by drugmakers Pfizer and BioNTech and Moderna appear to be safe and effective, along with the deliberate emphasis on science-based guidance from the incoming Biden administration, are likely to reverse uncertainty in a big way, said Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University.

“I think that’s going to flip the trust issue,” he said.

The shift is already apparent. A new poll by the Pew Research Center found that by the end of November 60% of Americans said they would get a vaccine for the coronavirus. This month, even as a federal advisory group met to hash out guidelines for vaccine distribution, a long list of advocacy groups – from those representing home-based health workers and community health centers to patients with kidney disease – were lobbying state and federal officials in hopes their constituents would be prioritized for the first scarce doses.

“As we get closer to the vaccine being a reality, there’s a lot of jockeying, to be sure,” said Katie Smith Sloan, chief executive of LeadingAge, a nonprofit organization pushing for staff and patients at long-term care centers to be included in the highest-priority category.

Certainly, some consumers remain wary, said Rupali Limaye, PhD, a social and behavioral health scientist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. Fears that drugmakers and regulators might cut corners to speed a vaccine linger, even as details of the trials become public and the review process is made more transparent. Some health care workers, who are at the front of the line for the shots, are not eager to go first.

“There will be people who will say, ‘I will wait a little bit more for safety data,” Dr. Limaye said.

But those doubts likely will recede once the vaccines are approved for use and begin to circulate broadly, said Dr. Offit, who sits on the Food and Drug Administration advisory panel set to review the requests for emergency authorization Pfizer and Moderna have submitted.

He predicted demand for the COVID vaccines could rival the clamor that occurred in 2004, when production problems caused a severe shortage of flu shots just as influenza season began. That led to long lines, rationed doses and ethical debates over distribution.

“That was a highly desired vaccine,” Dr. Offit said. “I think in many ways that might happen here.”

Initially, vaccine supplies will be tight, with federal officials planning to ship 6.4 million doses within 24 hours of FDA authorization and up to 40 million doses by the end of the year. The CDC panel recommended that the first shots go to the 21 million health care workers in the United States and 3 million nursing home staff and residents, before being rolled out to other groups based on a hierarchy of risk factors.

Even before any vaccine is available, some people are trying to boost their chances of access, said Allison Kempe, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Coloradoat Denver, Aurora, and expert in vaccine dissemination. “People have called me and said, ‘How can I get the vaccine?’” she said. “I think that not everyone will be happy to wait, that’s for sure. I don’t think there will be rioting in the streets, but there may be pressure brought to bear.”

That likely will include emotional debates over how, when, and to whom next doses should be distributed, said Dr. Caplan. Under the CDC recommendations, vulnerable groups next in line include 87 million workers whose jobs are deemed “essential” – a broad and ill-defined category – as well as 53 million adults age 65 and older.

“We’re going to have some fights about high-risk groups,” Dr. Caplan said.

The conversations will be complicated. Should prisoners, who have little control over their COVID exposure, get vaccine priority? How about professional sports teams, whose performance could bolster society’s overall morale? And what about residents of facilities providing care for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, who are three times more likely to die from COVID-19 than the general population?

Control over vaccination allocation rests with the states, so that’s where the biggest conflicts will occur, Dr. Caplan said. “It’s a short fight, I hope, in the sense in which it gets done in a few months, but I think it will be pretty vocal.”

Once vaccine supplies become more plentiful, perhaps by May or June, another consideration is sure to boost demand: requirements for proof of COVID vaccination for work and travel.

“It’s inevitable that you’re going to see immunity passports or that you’re required to show a certificate on the train, airplane, bus, or subway,” Dr. Caplan predicted. “Probably also to enter certain hospitals, probably to enter certain restaurants and government facilities.”

But with a grueling winter surge ahead, and new predictions that COVID-19 will fell as many as 450,000 Americans by February, the tragic reality of the disease will no doubt fuel ample demand for vaccination.

“People now know someone who has gotten COVID, who has been hospitalized or has unfortunately died,” Dr. Limaye said.

“We’re all seeing this now,” said Dr. Kempe. “Even deniers are beginning to see what this illness can do.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Americans have made no secret of their skepticism of COVID-19 vaccines this year, with fears of political interference and a “warp speed” timeline blunting confidence in the shots. As recently as September, nearly half of U.S. adults said they didn’t intend to be inoculated.

But with two promising vaccines primed for release, likely within weeks, experts in ethics and immunization behavior say they expect attitudes to shift quickly from widespread hesitancy to urgent, even heated demand.

“People talk about the antivaccine people being able to kind of squelch uptake. I don’t see that happening,” Dr. Paul Offit, MD, a vaccinologist with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told viewers of a recent JAMA Network webinar. “This, to me, is more like the Beanie Baby phenomenon. The attractiveness of a limited edition.”

Reports that vaccines produced by drugmakers Pfizer and BioNTech and Moderna appear to be safe and effective, along with the deliberate emphasis on science-based guidance from the incoming Biden administration, are likely to reverse uncertainty in a big way, said Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University.

“I think that’s going to flip the trust issue,” he said.

The shift is already apparent. A new poll by the Pew Research Center found that by the end of November 60% of Americans said they would get a vaccine for the coronavirus. This month, even as a federal advisory group met to hash out guidelines for vaccine distribution, a long list of advocacy groups – from those representing home-based health workers and community health centers to patients with kidney disease – were lobbying state and federal officials in hopes their constituents would be prioritized for the first scarce doses.

“As we get closer to the vaccine being a reality, there’s a lot of jockeying, to be sure,” said Katie Smith Sloan, chief executive of LeadingAge, a nonprofit organization pushing for staff and patients at long-term care centers to be included in the highest-priority category.

Certainly, some consumers remain wary, said Rupali Limaye, PhD, a social and behavioral health scientist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. Fears that drugmakers and regulators might cut corners to speed a vaccine linger, even as details of the trials become public and the review process is made more transparent. Some health care workers, who are at the front of the line for the shots, are not eager to go first.

“There will be people who will say, ‘I will wait a little bit more for safety data,” Dr. Limaye said.

But those doubts likely will recede once the vaccines are approved for use and begin to circulate broadly, said Dr. Offit, who sits on the Food and Drug Administration advisory panel set to review the requests for emergency authorization Pfizer and Moderna have submitted.

He predicted demand for the COVID vaccines could rival the clamor that occurred in 2004, when production problems caused a severe shortage of flu shots just as influenza season began. That led to long lines, rationed doses and ethical debates over distribution.

“That was a highly desired vaccine,” Dr. Offit said. “I think in many ways that might happen here.”

Initially, vaccine supplies will be tight, with federal officials planning to ship 6.4 million doses within 24 hours of FDA authorization and up to 40 million doses by the end of the year. The CDC panel recommended that the first shots go to the 21 million health care workers in the United States and 3 million nursing home staff and residents, before being rolled out to other groups based on a hierarchy of risk factors.

Even before any vaccine is available, some people are trying to boost their chances of access, said Allison Kempe, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Coloradoat Denver, Aurora, and expert in vaccine dissemination. “People have called me and said, ‘How can I get the vaccine?’” she said. “I think that not everyone will be happy to wait, that’s for sure. I don’t think there will be rioting in the streets, but there may be pressure brought to bear.”

That likely will include emotional debates over how, when, and to whom next doses should be distributed, said Dr. Caplan. Under the CDC recommendations, vulnerable groups next in line include 87 million workers whose jobs are deemed “essential” – a broad and ill-defined category – as well as 53 million adults age 65 and older.

“We’re going to have some fights about high-risk groups,” Dr. Caplan said.

The conversations will be complicated. Should prisoners, who have little control over their COVID exposure, get vaccine priority? How about professional sports teams, whose performance could bolster society’s overall morale? And what about residents of facilities providing care for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, who are three times more likely to die from COVID-19 than the general population?

Control over vaccination allocation rests with the states, so that’s where the biggest conflicts will occur, Dr. Caplan said. “It’s a short fight, I hope, in the sense in which it gets done in a few months, but I think it will be pretty vocal.”

Once vaccine supplies become more plentiful, perhaps by May or June, another consideration is sure to boost demand: requirements for proof of COVID vaccination for work and travel.

“It’s inevitable that you’re going to see immunity passports or that you’re required to show a certificate on the train, airplane, bus, or subway,” Dr. Caplan predicted. “Probably also to enter certain hospitals, probably to enter certain restaurants and government facilities.”

But with a grueling winter surge ahead, and new predictions that COVID-19 will fell as many as 450,000 Americans by February, the tragic reality of the disease will no doubt fuel ample demand for vaccination.

“People now know someone who has gotten COVID, who has been hospitalized or has unfortunately died,” Dr. Limaye said.

“We’re all seeing this now,” said Dr. Kempe. “Even deniers are beginning to see what this illness can do.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Response rates were high without dose-limiting toxicities in a small phase 1 study that evaluated the addition of propranolol to pembrolizumab in treatment-naive patients with metastatic melanoma.

“To our knowledge, this effort is the first prospective clinical trial to show that the combination of propranolol with pembrolizumab is safe, and additionally suggests preliminary synergistic antitumor activity in treatment-naive metastatic melanoma,” wrote the two co-first authors, Shipra Gandhi, MD, and Manu Pandey, MBBS, from the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., and coauthors.

The need for combinations built on anti-PD1 checkpoint inhibitor therapy strategies in metastatic melanoma that safely improve outcomes is underscored by the high (59%) grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) rates when an anti-CTLA4 agent (ipilimumab) was added to an anti-PD-1 agent (nivolumab), they noted. In contrast, a TRAE rate of only 17% has been reported with pembrolizumab monotherapy.

The phase 1b study was stimulated by preclinical, retrospective observations of improved overall survival (OS) in cancer patients treated with beta-blockers. These were preceded by murine melanoma studies showing decreased tumor growth and metastasis with the nonselective beta-blocker propranolol. “Propranolol exerts an antitumor effect,” the authors stated, “by favorably modulating the tumor microenvironment (TME) by decreasing myeloid-derived suppressor cells and increasing CD8+ T-cell and natural killer cells in the TME.” Other research in a melanoma model in chronically-stressed mice has demonstrated synergy between an anti-PD1 antibody and propranolol.

“We know that stress can have a significant negative effect on health, but the extent to which stress may impact the outcome of cancer therapy is not well understood at all,” Dr. Ghandi said in a statement provided by Roswell Park. “We set out to better understand this relationship and to explore its implications for cancer treatment.”

The investigators recruited nine White adults (median age 65 years) with treatment-naive, histologically confirmed unresectable stage III or IV melanoma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 to the open-label, single arm, nonrandomized, single-center, dose-finding study. Patients received standard of care intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks and, in three groups, propranolol doses of 10 mg, 20 mg, or 30 mg twice a day until 2 years on study or disease progression or the development of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Assessing the safety and efficacy (overall response rate [ORR] within 6 months of starting therapy) of pembrolizumab with the increasing doses of propranolol and selecting the recommended phase 2 dose were the study’s primary objectives.

Objective responses (complete or partial responses) were reported in seven of the nine patients, with partial tumor responses in two patients in the propranolol 10-mg group, two partial responses in the 20-mg group, and three partial responses in the 30-mg group.

While all patients experienced TRAEs, only one was above grade 2. The most commonly reported TRAEs were fatigue, rash and vitiligo, reported in four of the nine patients. Two patients in the 20-mg twice-a-day group discontinued therapy because of TRAEs (hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis and labyrinthitis). No DLTs were observed at any of the three dose levels, and no deaths occurred on study treatment.

The authors said that propranolol 30 mg twice a day was chosen as the recommended phase 2 dose, because in combination with pembrolizumab, there were no DLTs, and preliminary antitumor efficacy was observed in all three patients. Also, in all three patients, the investigators observed a trend toward higher CD8+T-cell percentage, higher ratios of CD8+T-cell/ Treg and CD8+T-cell/ polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells. They underscored, however, that the small size and significant heterogeneity in biomarkers made a statistically sound and meaningful interpretation of biomarkers for deciding the phase 2 dose difficult.

“In repurposing propranolol,” Dr. Pandey said in the Roswell statement, “we’ve gained important insights on how to manage stress in people with cancer – who can face dangerously elevated levels of mental and physical stress related to their diagnosis and treatment.”

In an interview, one of the two senior authors, Elizabeth Repasky, PhD, professor of oncology and immunology at Roswell Park, said, “it’s exciting that an extremely inexpensive drug like propranolol that could be used in every country around the world could have an impact on cancer by blocking stress, especially chronic stress.” Her murine research showing that adding propranolol to immunotherapy or radiotherapy or chemotherapy improved tumor growth control provided rationale for the current study.

“The breakthrough in this study is that it reveals the immune system as the best target to look at, and shows that what stress reduction is doing is improving a patient’s immune response to his or her own tumor,” Dr. Repasky said. “The mind/body connection is so important, but we have not had a handle on how to study it,” she added.

Further research funded by Herd of Hope grants at Roswell will look at tumor effects of propranolol and nonpharmacological reducers of chronic stress such as exercise, meditation, yoga, and Tai Chi, with first studies in breast cancer.

The study was funded by Roswell Park, private, and NIH grants. The authors had no disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Gandhi S et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Oct 30. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2381

Response rates were high without dose-limiting toxicities in a small phase 1 study that evaluated the addition of propranolol to pembrolizumab in treatment-naive patients with metastatic melanoma.

“To our knowledge, this effort is the first prospective clinical trial to show that the combination of propranolol with pembrolizumab is safe, and additionally suggests preliminary synergistic antitumor activity in treatment-naive metastatic melanoma,” wrote the two co-first authors, Shipra Gandhi, MD, and Manu Pandey, MBBS, from the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., and coauthors.

The need for combinations built on anti-PD1 checkpoint inhibitor therapy strategies in metastatic melanoma that safely improve outcomes is underscored by the high (59%) grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) rates when an anti-CTLA4 agent (ipilimumab) was added to an anti-PD-1 agent (nivolumab), they noted. In contrast, a TRAE rate of only 17% has been reported with pembrolizumab monotherapy.

The phase 1b study was stimulated by preclinical, retrospective observations of improved overall survival (OS) in cancer patients treated with beta-blockers. These were preceded by murine melanoma studies showing decreased tumor growth and metastasis with the nonselective beta-blocker propranolol. “Propranolol exerts an antitumor effect,” the authors stated, “by favorably modulating the tumor microenvironment (TME) by decreasing myeloid-derived suppressor cells and increasing CD8+ T-cell and natural killer cells in the TME.” Other research in a melanoma model in chronically-stressed mice has demonstrated synergy between an anti-PD1 antibody and propranolol.

“We know that stress can have a significant negative effect on health, but the extent to which stress may impact the outcome of cancer therapy is not well understood at all,” Dr. Ghandi said in a statement provided by Roswell Park. “We set out to better understand this relationship and to explore its implications for cancer treatment.”

The investigators recruited nine White adults (median age 65 years) with treatment-naive, histologically confirmed unresectable stage III or IV melanoma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 to the open-label, single arm, nonrandomized, single-center, dose-finding study. Patients received standard of care intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks and, in three groups, propranolol doses of 10 mg, 20 mg, or 30 mg twice a day until 2 years on study or disease progression or the development of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Assessing the safety and efficacy (overall response rate [ORR] within 6 months of starting therapy) of pembrolizumab with the increasing doses of propranolol and selecting the recommended phase 2 dose were the study’s primary objectives.

Objective responses (complete or partial responses) were reported in seven of the nine patients, with partial tumor responses in two patients in the propranolol 10-mg group, two partial responses in the 20-mg group, and three partial responses in the 30-mg group.

While all patients experienced TRAEs, only one was above grade 2. The most commonly reported TRAEs were fatigue, rash and vitiligo, reported in four of the nine patients. Two patients in the 20-mg twice-a-day group discontinued therapy because of TRAEs (hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis and labyrinthitis). No DLTs were observed at any of the three dose levels, and no deaths occurred on study treatment.

The authors said that propranolol 30 mg twice a day was chosen as the recommended phase 2 dose, because in combination with pembrolizumab, there were no DLTs, and preliminary antitumor efficacy was observed in all three patients. Also, in all three patients, the investigators observed a trend toward higher CD8+T-cell percentage, higher ratios of CD8+T-cell/ Treg and CD8+T-cell/ polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells. They underscored, however, that the small size and significant heterogeneity in biomarkers made a statistically sound and meaningful interpretation of biomarkers for deciding the phase 2 dose difficult.

“In repurposing propranolol,” Dr. Pandey said in the Roswell statement, “we’ve gained important insights on how to manage stress in people with cancer – who can face dangerously elevated levels of mental and physical stress related to their diagnosis and treatment.”

In an interview, one of the two senior authors, Elizabeth Repasky, PhD, professor of oncology and immunology at Roswell Park, said, “it’s exciting that an extremely inexpensive drug like propranolol that could be used in every country around the world could have an impact on cancer by blocking stress, especially chronic stress.” Her murine research showing that adding propranolol to immunotherapy or radiotherapy or chemotherapy improved tumor growth control provided rationale for the current study.

“The breakthrough in this study is that it reveals the immune system as the best target to look at, and shows that what stress reduction is doing is improving a patient’s immune response to his or her own tumor,” Dr. Repasky said. “The mind/body connection is so important, but we have not had a handle on how to study it,” she added.

Further research funded by Herd of Hope grants at Roswell will look at tumor effects of propranolol and nonpharmacological reducers of chronic stress such as exercise, meditation, yoga, and Tai Chi, with first studies in breast cancer.

The study was funded by Roswell Park, private, and NIH grants. The authors had no disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Gandhi S et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Oct 30. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2381

Response rates were high without dose-limiting toxicities in a small phase 1 study that evaluated the addition of propranolol to pembrolizumab in treatment-naive patients with metastatic melanoma.

“To our knowledge, this effort is the first prospective clinical trial to show that the combination of propranolol with pembrolizumab is safe, and additionally suggests preliminary synergistic antitumor activity in treatment-naive metastatic melanoma,” wrote the two co-first authors, Shipra Gandhi, MD, and Manu Pandey, MBBS, from the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., and coauthors.

The need for combinations built on anti-PD1 checkpoint inhibitor therapy strategies in metastatic melanoma that safely improve outcomes is underscored by the high (59%) grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) rates when an anti-CTLA4 agent (ipilimumab) was added to an anti-PD-1 agent (nivolumab), they noted. In contrast, a TRAE rate of only 17% has been reported with pembrolizumab monotherapy.

The phase 1b study was stimulated by preclinical, retrospective observations of improved overall survival (OS) in cancer patients treated with beta-blockers. These were preceded by murine melanoma studies showing decreased tumor growth and metastasis with the nonselective beta-blocker propranolol. “Propranolol exerts an antitumor effect,” the authors stated, “by favorably modulating the tumor microenvironment (TME) by decreasing myeloid-derived suppressor cells and increasing CD8+ T-cell and natural killer cells in the TME.” Other research in a melanoma model in chronically-stressed mice has demonstrated synergy between an anti-PD1 antibody and propranolol.

“We know that stress can have a significant negative effect on health, but the extent to which stress may impact the outcome of cancer therapy is not well understood at all,” Dr. Ghandi said in a statement provided by Roswell Park. “We set out to better understand this relationship and to explore its implications for cancer treatment.”

The investigators recruited nine White adults (median age 65 years) with treatment-naive, histologically confirmed unresectable stage III or IV melanoma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 to the open-label, single arm, nonrandomized, single-center, dose-finding study. Patients received standard of care intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks and, in three groups, propranolol doses of 10 mg, 20 mg, or 30 mg twice a day until 2 years on study or disease progression or the development of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Assessing the safety and efficacy (overall response rate [ORR] within 6 months of starting therapy) of pembrolizumab with the increasing doses of propranolol and selecting the recommended phase 2 dose were the study’s primary objectives.

Objective responses (complete or partial responses) were reported in seven of the nine patients, with partial tumor responses in two patients in the propranolol 10-mg group, two partial responses in the 20-mg group, and three partial responses in the 30-mg group.

While all patients experienced TRAEs, only one was above grade 2. The most commonly reported TRAEs were fatigue, rash and vitiligo, reported in four of the nine patients. Two patients in the 20-mg twice-a-day group discontinued therapy because of TRAEs (hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis and labyrinthitis). No DLTs were observed at any of the three dose levels, and no deaths occurred on study treatment.

The authors said that propranolol 30 mg twice a day was chosen as the recommended phase 2 dose, because in combination with pembrolizumab, there were no DLTs, and preliminary antitumor efficacy was observed in all three patients. Also, in all three patients, the investigators observed a trend toward higher CD8+T-cell percentage, higher ratios of CD8+T-cell/ Treg and CD8+T-cell/ polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells. They underscored, however, that the small size and significant heterogeneity in biomarkers made a statistically sound and meaningful interpretation of biomarkers for deciding the phase 2 dose difficult.

“In repurposing propranolol,” Dr. Pandey said in the Roswell statement, “we’ve gained important insights on how to manage stress in people with cancer – who can face dangerously elevated levels of mental and physical stress related to their diagnosis and treatment.”

In an interview, one of the two senior authors, Elizabeth Repasky, PhD, professor of oncology and immunology at Roswell Park, said, “it’s exciting that an extremely inexpensive drug like propranolol that could be used in every country around the world could have an impact on cancer by blocking stress, especially chronic stress.” Her murine research showing that adding propranolol to immunotherapy or radiotherapy or chemotherapy improved tumor growth control provided rationale for the current study.

“The breakthrough in this study is that it reveals the immune system as the best target to look at, and shows that what stress reduction is doing is improving a patient’s immune response to his or her own tumor,” Dr. Repasky said. “The mind/body connection is so important, but we have not had a handle on how to study it,” she added.

Further research funded by Herd of Hope grants at Roswell will look at tumor effects of propranolol and nonpharmacological reducers of chronic stress such as exercise, meditation, yoga, and Tai Chi, with first studies in breast cancer.

The study was funded by Roswell Park, private, and NIH grants. The authors had no disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Gandhi S et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Oct 30. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2381

The 2020 Medical Specialties Matching Program (MSMP), a division of the National Resident Matching Program, matched a record number of applicants to subspecialty training programs for positions beginning in 2021, the NRMP reported.

“Specifically, the 2020 MSMP included 6,847 applicants submitting certified rank order lists (an 8.9% increase), 2042 programs submitting certified rank order lists (a 4.3% increase), 5,734 positions (a 2.8% increase), and 5,208 positions filled (a 6.1% increase),” according to a news release.

The MSMP now includes 14 internal medicine subspecialties and four sub-subspecialties. The MSMP offered 5,734 positions this year, and 5,208 (90.8%) were successfully filled. That represents an increase of almost 3 percentage points, compared with last year’s results.

Among those subspecialties that offered 30 positions or more, the most competitive were allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, and pulmonary/critical care. Each of those filled at least 95% of available slots. More than half of the positions were filled by U.S. MDs.

By contrast, the least competitive subspecialties were geriatric medicine and nephrology. Programs in these two fields filled less than 75% of positions offered. Less than 45% were filled by U.S. MDs.

More than 76% of the 6,847 applicants who submitted rank order lists (5,208) matched into residency programs.

The number of U.S. MDs in this category increased nearly 7% over last year, with a total of 2,935. The number of DO graduates increased as well, with a total of 855, which was 9.6% more than the previous year.

More U.S. citizens who graduated from international medical schools matched this year as well; 1,087 placed into subspecialty residency, a 9% increase, compared with last year.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The 2020 Medical Specialties Matching Program (MSMP), a division of the National Resident Matching Program, matched a record number of applicants to subspecialty training programs for positions beginning in 2021, the NRMP reported.

“Specifically, the 2020 MSMP included 6,847 applicants submitting certified rank order lists (an 8.9% increase), 2042 programs submitting certified rank order lists (a 4.3% increase), 5,734 positions (a 2.8% increase), and 5,208 positions filled (a 6.1% increase),” according to a news release.

The MSMP now includes 14 internal medicine subspecialties and four sub-subspecialties. The MSMP offered 5,734 positions this year, and 5,208 (90.8%) were successfully filled. That represents an increase of almost 3 percentage points, compared with last year’s results.

Among those subspecialties that offered 30 positions or more, the most competitive were allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, and pulmonary/critical care. Each of those filled at least 95% of available slots. More than half of the positions were filled by U.S. MDs.

By contrast, the least competitive subspecialties were geriatric medicine and nephrology. Programs in these two fields filled less than 75% of positions offered. Less than 45% were filled by U.S. MDs.

More than 76% of the 6,847 applicants who submitted rank order lists (5,208) matched into residency programs.

The number of U.S. MDs in this category increased nearly 7% over last year, with a total of 2,935. The number of DO graduates increased as well, with a total of 855, which was 9.6% more than the previous year.

More U.S. citizens who graduated from international medical schools matched this year as well; 1,087 placed into subspecialty residency, a 9% increase, compared with last year.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The 2020 Medical Specialties Matching Program (MSMP), a division of the National Resident Matching Program, matched a record number of applicants to subspecialty training programs for positions beginning in 2021, the NRMP reported.

“Specifically, the 2020 MSMP included 6,847 applicants submitting certified rank order lists (an 8.9% increase), 2042 programs submitting certified rank order lists (a 4.3% increase), 5,734 positions (a 2.8% increase), and 5,208 positions filled (a 6.1% increase),” according to a news release.

The MSMP now includes 14 internal medicine subspecialties and four sub-subspecialties. The MSMP offered 5,734 positions this year, and 5,208 (90.8%) were successfully filled. That represents an increase of almost 3 percentage points, compared with last year’s results.

Among those subspecialties that offered 30 positions or more, the most competitive were allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, and pulmonary/critical care. Each of those filled at least 95% of available slots. More than half of the positions were filled by U.S. MDs.

By contrast, the least competitive subspecialties were geriatric medicine and nephrology. Programs in these two fields filled less than 75% of positions offered. Less than 45% were filled by U.S. MDs.

More than 76% of the 6,847 applicants who submitted rank order lists (5,208) matched into residency programs.

The number of U.S. MDs in this category increased nearly 7% over last year, with a total of 2,935. The number of DO graduates increased as well, with a total of 855, which was 9.6% more than the previous year.

More U.S. citizens who graduated from international medical schools matched this year as well; 1,087 placed into subspecialty residency, a 9% increase, compared with last year.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

President-elect Joe Biden has nominated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to run the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) under his new administration, according to a statement from the Biden-Harris transition team.

Rich Pedroncelli/AP

If confirmed by the US Senate, Becerra will face the challenge of overseeing the federal agency charged with protecting the health of all Americans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the announcement, nearly 15 million Americans had tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 280,000 had died.

Becerra served 12 terms in Congress, representing the Los Angeles area. Although his public health experience is limited, he served on the Congressional Ways and Means Committee overseeing health-related issues. Becerra is known as an advocate for the health and well-being of women in particular.

The American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote a letter to Biden on December 3 urging him to select leaders with medical and healthcare expertise, in particular physicians.

“We believe that your administration and the country would be well-served by the appointment of qualified physicians to serve in key positions critical to advancing the health of our nation,” they wrote. “Therefore, our organizations, which represent more than 400,000 front-line physicians practicing in the United States, write to request that you identify and appoint physicians to healthcare leadership positions within your administration.”
 

Recent advocacy

Becerra has worked with Republican attorneys general to lobby HHS to increase access to remdesivir to treat people with COVID-19.

As attorney general, Becerra filed more than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration. In November, he also represented more than 20 states in arguments supporting the Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court.

On December 4, Becerra joined with attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia opposing a proposed rule from the outgoing Trump administration. The rule would deregulate HHS and “sunset”many agency provisions before Trump leaves office next month.

Becerra will be the first Latino appointed as HHS secretary, which furthers Biden’s goal to create a diverse cabinet. Becerra has been attorney general of California since 2017, replacing Vice President-elect Kamala Harris when she became senator.

Biden’s choice of Becerra was unexpected, according to The New York Times, and he was not the only candidate. Speculation was that Biden initially considered Vivek Murthy, MD, later chosen as the next US surgeon general, as well New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo.
 

A huge undertaking

As HHS secretary, Becerra would oversee a wide range of federal agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The fiscal year 2021 budget proposed for HHS includes $94.5 billion in discretionary budget authority and $1.3 trillion in mandatory funding. Overall, HHS controls nearly one quarter of all federal expenditures and provides more grant money than all other federal agencies combined.

Becerra, 62, grew up in Sacramento, California. He was the first in his family to graduate from college. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President-elect Joe Biden has nominated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to run the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) under his new administration, according to a statement from the Biden-Harris transition team.

Rich Pedroncelli/AP

If confirmed by the US Senate, Becerra will face the challenge of overseeing the federal agency charged with protecting the health of all Americans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the announcement, nearly 15 million Americans had tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 280,000 had died.

Becerra served 12 terms in Congress, representing the Los Angeles area. Although his public health experience is limited, he served on the Congressional Ways and Means Committee overseeing health-related issues. Becerra is known as an advocate for the health and well-being of women in particular.

The American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote a letter to Biden on December 3 urging him to select leaders with medical and healthcare expertise, in particular physicians.

“We believe that your administration and the country would be well-served by the appointment of qualified physicians to serve in key positions critical to advancing the health of our nation,” they wrote. “Therefore, our organizations, which represent more than 400,000 front-line physicians practicing in the United States, write to request that you identify and appoint physicians to healthcare leadership positions within your administration.”
 

Recent advocacy

Becerra has worked with Republican attorneys general to lobby HHS to increase access to remdesivir to treat people with COVID-19.

As attorney general, Becerra filed more than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration. In November, he also represented more than 20 states in arguments supporting the Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court.

On December 4, Becerra joined with attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia opposing a proposed rule from the outgoing Trump administration. The rule would deregulate HHS and “sunset”many agency provisions before Trump leaves office next month.

Becerra will be the first Latino appointed as HHS secretary, which furthers Biden’s goal to create a diverse cabinet. Becerra has been attorney general of California since 2017, replacing Vice President-elect Kamala Harris when she became senator.

Biden’s choice of Becerra was unexpected, according to The New York Times, and he was not the only candidate. Speculation was that Biden initially considered Vivek Murthy, MD, later chosen as the next US surgeon general, as well New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo.
 

A huge undertaking

As HHS secretary, Becerra would oversee a wide range of federal agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The fiscal year 2021 budget proposed for HHS includes $94.5 billion in discretionary budget authority and $1.3 trillion in mandatory funding. Overall, HHS controls nearly one quarter of all federal expenditures and provides more grant money than all other federal agencies combined.

Becerra, 62, grew up in Sacramento, California. He was the first in his family to graduate from college. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President-elect Joe Biden has nominated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to run the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) under his new administration, according to a statement from the Biden-Harris transition team.

Rich Pedroncelli/AP

If confirmed by the US Senate, Becerra will face the challenge of overseeing the federal agency charged with protecting the health of all Americans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the announcement, nearly 15 million Americans had tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 280,000 had died.

Becerra served 12 terms in Congress, representing the Los Angeles area. Although his public health experience is limited, he served on the Congressional Ways and Means Committee overseeing health-related issues. Becerra is known as an advocate for the health and well-being of women in particular.

The American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote a letter to Biden on December 3 urging him to select leaders with medical and healthcare expertise, in particular physicians.

“We believe that your administration and the country would be well-served by the appointment of qualified physicians to serve in key positions critical to advancing the health of our nation,” they wrote. “Therefore, our organizations, which represent more than 400,000 front-line physicians practicing in the United States, write to request that you identify and appoint physicians to healthcare leadership positions within your administration.”
 

Recent advocacy

Becerra has worked with Republican attorneys general to lobby HHS to increase access to remdesivir to treat people with COVID-19.

As attorney general, Becerra filed more than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration. In November, he also represented more than 20 states in arguments supporting the Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court.

On December 4, Becerra joined with attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia opposing a proposed rule from the outgoing Trump administration. The rule would deregulate HHS and “sunset”many agency provisions before Trump leaves office next month.

Becerra will be the first Latino appointed as HHS secretary, which furthers Biden’s goal to create a diverse cabinet. Becerra has been attorney general of California since 2017, replacing Vice President-elect Kamala Harris when she became senator.

Biden’s choice of Becerra was unexpected, according to The New York Times, and he was not the only candidate. Speculation was that Biden initially considered Vivek Murthy, MD, later chosen as the next US surgeon general, as well New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo.
 

A huge undertaking

As HHS secretary, Becerra would oversee a wide range of federal agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The fiscal year 2021 budget proposed for HHS includes $94.5 billion in discretionary budget authority and $1.3 trillion in mandatory funding. Overall, HHS controls nearly one quarter of all federal expenditures and provides more grant money than all other federal agencies combined.

Becerra, 62, grew up in Sacramento, California. He was the first in his family to graduate from college. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Neoadjuvant therapy with intralesional talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) has durable efficacy in advanced melanoma, according to a phase 2 trial reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

T-VEC is a modified virus that lyses tumor cells locally and induces a systemic immune response. In the phase 2 trial, neoadjuvant T-VEC plus surgery improved 3-year recurrence-free survival, when compared with immediate surgery, in patients with resectable melanoma.

“This is the first neoadjuvant trial for an approved oncolytic virus in melanoma and the largest randomized prospectively controlled neoadjuvant melanoma trial completed to date,” said investigator Reinhard Dummer, MD, of University Hospital Zürich.

The multicenter trial enrolled 150 patients with resectable stage IIIB–IV M1a melanoma (thereby including many with in-transit metastasis) who had at least one injectable lesion.

“This patient population is typically excluded from the trials that are published. Those trials typically focus on lymph node metastasis only,” Dr. Dummer noted.

The patients were randomized evenly to receive six doses over 12 weeks of intralesional T-VEC followed by surgical resection, or to the conventional approach of immediate surgical resection.
 

Survival results

The median follow-up for this interim analysis was 41.3 months.

The 3-year rate of recurrence-free survival, the trial’s primary endpoint, was 46.5% with T-VEC plus surgery and 31.0% with immediate surgery (hazard ratio, 0.67; P = .043). The median duration of recurrence-free survival was 27.5 months and 5.4 months, respectively.

These results were comparable with results seen at 2 years, which were published in Annals of Oncology in 2019. The 2-year rate of recurrence-free survival was 50.5% with T-VEC plus surgery and 31.0% with immediate surgery (HR, 0.66; P = .038).

“These patients appear to be in a plateau phase now,” Dr. Dummer remarked.

The 3-year rate of event-free survival, which excluded any events related to a delay of surgery, was 50.3% for T-VEC and 32.7% for immediate surgery (HR, 0.58, P = .015).

Findings for both outcomes were similar when analyses were repeated after removing events that occurred after receipt of therapy in the adjuvant or metastatic setting.

Finally, the 3-year rate of overall survival was 83.2% with T-VEC plus surgery and 71.6% with immediate surgery (HR, 0.54; P = .061). Respective 2-year values were 88.9% and 77.4% (HR, 0.49; P = .050).

In all, 50.7% of patients in the T-VEC group received subsequent anticancer therapy, compared with 76.8% in the immediate-surgery group. Respective values specifically for subsequent immunotherapy – usually immune checkpoint inhibitors – were 32.9% and 46.4%.

“I think this is a good argument that the effects we see on overall survival and recurrence-free survival are not caused by improved second-line treatments,” Dr. Dummer said.

No new safety signals emerged during the additional year of follow-up. The trial’s final analysis will be conducted after 5 years of follow-up.

“These results build upon the prior 2-year results to support the potential beneficial effect of neoadjuvant T-VEC on advanced resectable melanoma,” Dr. Dummer said.

“In general, if you compare this to the objective outcomes that we see with neoadjuvant ipilimumab-nivolumab, for example, the results do not look very attractive,” he acknowledged.

“However, we have to keep in mind that this is a difficult patient population,” he added, noting that many patients have in-transit metastases that would disqualify them from conventional neoadjuvant therapy. Also, cross-trial comparisons are complicated by the need to allow adjuvant therapy in patients who receive neoadjuvant therapy.

“I would say the combination of ipilimumab-nivolumab should be more powerful, but T-VEC has some impact, and from my understanding, T-VEC would be a perfect partner for a combination, for example, with an anti–[programmed death 1] agent,” Dr. Dummer concluded.
 

‘Impressive’ data support more research

“Neoadjuvant approaches are gaining enthusiasm for patients with locally advanced disease that may not be amenable to simple excision or may require large disfiguring procedures,” said Howard L. Kaufman, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Dana Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, both in Boston, who was not involved in this study.

© Michael Hoetzel

“A treatment option that could induce tumor regression while also promoting immune responses against the tumor is attractive,” Dr. Kaufman added.

“I continue to be impressed with this clinical trial as it demonstrates a consistent improvement in recurrence-free survival, event-free survival, and overall survival for patients treated with neoadjuvant T-VEC and surgery, compared to those who undergo surgery alone,” he said in an interview. “Confirmation that the responses are now maintained for another year is an important milestone.”

Given the study’s fairly small size, large treatment differences would be needed to attain the observed statistical significance, and “this is why the data at 3 years of follow-up is so impressive,” Dr. Kaufman said.

However, benefit of T-VEC’s activity in inducing a systemic immune response may not become fully evident until the end of the trial.

“Overall survival at 5 years is the most relevant endpoint,” Dr. Kaufman maintained.

An important aspect of the study is that it enrolled patients with a range of melanoma stages, including about 18% with stage IV M1a disease, he added.

“This could potentially influence the results, where earlier-stage patients may have a more durable response, compared to higher-stage patients and, thus, the data may be further diluted by the small sample size,” he proposed. “Given this possibility, my sense is that the data is even more impressive since there still appears to be a significant clinical benefit at 3 years, and I would recommend larger studies in patients with earlier-stage melanoma as fertile ground for further oncolytic virus drug development.”

The current trial was funded by Amgen. Dr. Dummer disclosed relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, and CatalYm. Dr. Kaufman disclosed employment by Immuneering.

SOURCE: Dummer R et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 432.

Neoadjuvant therapy with intralesional talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) has durable efficacy in advanced melanoma, according to a phase 2 trial reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

T-VEC is a modified virus that lyses tumor cells locally and induces a systemic immune response. In the phase 2 trial, neoadjuvant T-VEC plus surgery improved 3-year recurrence-free survival, when compared with immediate surgery, in patients with resectable melanoma.

“This is the first neoadjuvant trial for an approved oncolytic virus in melanoma and the largest randomized prospectively controlled neoadjuvant melanoma trial completed to date,” said investigator Reinhard Dummer, MD, of University Hospital Zürich.

The multicenter trial enrolled 150 patients with resectable stage IIIB–IV M1a melanoma (thereby including many with in-transit metastasis) who had at least one injectable lesion.

“This patient population is typically excluded from the trials that are published. Those trials typically focus on lymph node metastasis only,” Dr. Dummer noted.

The patients were randomized evenly to receive six doses over 12 weeks of intralesional T-VEC followed by surgical resection, or to the conventional approach of immediate surgical resection.
 

Survival results

The median follow-up for this interim analysis was 41.3 months.

The 3-year rate of recurrence-free survival, the trial’s primary endpoint, was 46.5% with T-VEC plus surgery and 31.0% with immediate surgery (hazard ratio, 0.67; P = .043). The median duration of recurrence-free survival was 27.5 months and 5.4 months, respectively.

These results were comparable with results seen at 2 years, which were published in Annals of Oncology in 2019. The 2-year rate of recurrence-free survival was 50.5% with T-VEC plus surgery and 31.0% with immediate surgery (HR, 0.66; P = .038).

“These patients appear to be in a plateau phase now,” Dr. Dummer remarked.

The 3-year rate of event-free survival, which excluded any events related to a delay of surgery, was 50.3% for T-VEC and 32.7% for immediate surgery (HR, 0.58, P = .015).

Findings for both outcomes were similar when analyses were repeated after removing events that occurred after receipt of therapy in the adjuvant or metastatic setting.

Finally, the 3-year rate of overall survival was 83.2% with T-VEC plus surgery and 71.6% with immediate surgery (HR, 0.54; P = .061). Respective 2-year values were 88.9% and 77.4% (HR, 0.49; P = .050).

In all, 50.7% of patients in the T-VEC group received subsequent anticancer therapy, compared with 76.8% in the immediate-surgery group. Respective values specifically for subsequent immunotherapy – usually immune checkpoint inhibitors – were 32.9% and 46.4%.

“I think this is a good argument that the effects we see on overall survival and recurrence-free survival are not caused by improved second-line treatments,” Dr. Dummer said.

No new safety signals emerged during the additional year of follow-up. The trial’s final analysis will be conducted after 5 years of follow-up.

“These results build upon the prior 2-year results to support the potential beneficial effect of neoadjuvant T-VEC on advanced resectable melanoma,” Dr. Dummer said.

“In general, if you compare this to the objective outcomes that we see with neoadjuvant ipilimumab-nivolumab, for example, the results do not look very attractive,” he acknowledged.

“However, we have to keep in mind that this is a difficult patient population,” he added, noting that many patients have in-transit metastases that would disqualify them from conventional neoadjuvant therapy. Also, cross-trial comparisons are complicated by the need to allow adjuvant therapy in patients who receive neoadjuvant therapy.

“I would say the combination of ipilimumab-nivolumab should be more powerful, but T-VEC has some impact, and from my understanding, T-VEC would be a perfect partner for a combination, for example, with an anti–[programmed death 1] agent,” Dr. Dummer concluded.
 

‘Impressive’ data support more research

“Neoadjuvant approaches are gaining enthusiasm for patients with locally advanced disease that may not be amenable to simple excision or may require large disfiguring procedures,” said Howard L. Kaufman, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Dana Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, both in Boston, who was not involved in this study.

© Michael Hoetzel

“A treatment option that could induce tumor regression while also promoting immune responses against the tumor is attractive,” Dr. Kaufman added.

“I continue to be impressed with this clinical trial as it demonstrates a consistent improvement in recurrence-free survival, event-free survival, and overall survival for patients treated with neoadjuvant T-VEC and surgery, compared to those who undergo surgery alone,” he said in an interview. “Confirmation that the responses are now maintained for another year is an important milestone.”

Given the study’s fairly small size, large treatment differences would be needed to attain the observed statistical significance, and “this is why the data at 3 years of follow-up is so impressive,” Dr. Kaufman said.

However, benefit of T-VEC’s activity in inducing a systemic immune response may not become fully evident until the end of the trial.

“Overall survival at 5 years is the most relevant endpoint,” Dr. Kaufman maintained.

An important aspect of the study is that it enrolled patients with a range of melanoma stages, including about 18% with stage IV M1a disease, he added.

“This could potentially influence the results, where earlier-stage patients may have a more durable response, compared to higher-stage patients and, thus, the data may be further diluted by the small sample size,” he proposed. “Given this possibility, my sense is that the data is even more impressive since there still appears to be a significant clinical benefit at 3 years, and I would recommend larger studies in patients with earlier-stage melanoma as fertile ground for further oncolytic virus drug development.”

The current trial was funded by Amgen. Dr. Dummer disclosed relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, and CatalYm. Dr. Kaufman disclosed employment by Immuneering.

SOURCE: Dummer R et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 432.

Neoadjuvant therapy with intralesional talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) has durable efficacy in advanced melanoma, according to a phase 2 trial reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

T-VEC is a modified virus that lyses tumor cells locally and induces a systemic immune response. In the phase 2 trial, neoadjuvant T-VEC plus surgery improved 3-year recurrence-free survival, when compared with immediate surgery, in patients with resectable melanoma.

“This is the first neoadjuvant trial for an approved oncolytic virus in melanoma and the largest randomized prospectively controlled neoadjuvant melanoma trial completed to date,” said investigator Reinhard Dummer, MD, of University Hospital Zürich.

The multicenter trial enrolled 150 patients with resectable stage IIIB–IV M1a melanoma (thereby including many with in-transit metastasis) who had at least one injectable lesion.

“This patient population is typically excluded from the trials that are published. Those trials typically focus on lymph node metastasis only,” Dr. Dummer noted.

The patients were randomized evenly to receive six doses over 12 weeks of intralesional T-VEC followed by surgical resection, or to the conventional approach of immediate surgical resection.
 

Survival results

The median follow-up for this interim analysis was 41.3 months.

The 3-year rate of recurrence-free survival, the trial’s primary endpoint, was 46.5% with T-VEC plus surgery and 31.0% with immediate surgery (hazard ratio, 0.67; P = .043). The median duration of recurrence-free survival was 27.5 months and 5.4 months, respectively.

These results were comparable with results seen at 2 years, which were published in Annals of Oncology in 2019. The 2-year rate of recurrence-free survival was 50.5% with T-VEC plus surgery and 31.0% with immediate surgery (HR, 0.66; P = .038).

“These patients appear to be in a plateau phase now,” Dr. Dummer remarked.

The 3-year rate of event-free survival, which excluded any events related to a delay of surgery, was 50.3% for T-VEC and 32.7% for immediate surgery (HR, 0.58, P = .015).

Findings for both outcomes were similar when analyses were repeated after removing events that occurred after receipt of therapy in the adjuvant or metastatic setting.

Finally, the 3-year rate of overall survival was 83.2% with T-VEC plus surgery and 71.6% with immediate surgery (HR, 0.54; P = .061). Respective 2-year values were 88.9% and 77.4% (HR, 0.49; P = .050).

In all, 50.7% of patients in the T-VEC group received subsequent anticancer therapy, compared with 76.8% in the immediate-surgery group. Respective values specifically for subsequent immunotherapy – usually immune checkpoint inhibitors – were 32.9% and 46.4%.

“I think this is a good argument that the effects we see on overall survival and recurrence-free survival are not caused by improved second-line treatments,” Dr. Dummer said.

No new safety signals emerged during the additional year of follow-up. The trial’s final analysis will be conducted after 5 years of follow-up.

“These results build upon the prior 2-year results to support the potential beneficial effect of neoadjuvant T-VEC on advanced resectable melanoma,” Dr. Dummer said.

“In general, if you compare this to the objective outcomes that we see with neoadjuvant ipilimumab-nivolumab, for example, the results do not look very attractive,” he acknowledged.

“However, we have to keep in mind that this is a difficult patient population,” he added, noting that many patients have in-transit metastases that would disqualify them from conventional neoadjuvant therapy. Also, cross-trial comparisons are complicated by the need to allow adjuvant therapy in patients who receive neoadjuvant therapy.

“I would say the combination of ipilimumab-nivolumab should be more powerful, but T-VEC has some impact, and from my understanding, T-VEC would be a perfect partner for a combination, for example, with an anti–[programmed death 1] agent,” Dr. Dummer concluded.
 

‘Impressive’ data support more research

“Neoadjuvant approaches are gaining enthusiasm for patients with locally advanced disease that may not be amenable to simple excision or may require large disfiguring procedures,” said Howard L. Kaufman, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Dana Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, both in Boston, who was not involved in this study.

© Michael Hoetzel

“A treatment option that could induce tumor regression while also promoting immune responses against the tumor is attractive,” Dr. Kaufman added.

“I continue to be impressed with this clinical trial as it demonstrates a consistent improvement in recurrence-free survival, event-free survival, and overall survival for patients treated with neoadjuvant T-VEC and surgery, compared to those who undergo surgery alone,” he said in an interview. “Confirmation that the responses are now maintained for another year is an important milestone.”

Given the study’s fairly small size, large treatment differences would be needed to attain the observed statistical significance, and “this is why the data at 3 years of follow-up is so impressive,” Dr. Kaufman said.

However, benefit of T-VEC’s activity in inducing a systemic immune response may not become fully evident until the end of the trial.

“Overall survival at 5 years is the most relevant endpoint,” Dr. Kaufman maintained.

An important aspect of the study is that it enrolled patients with a range of melanoma stages, including about 18% with stage IV M1a disease, he added.

“This could potentially influence the results, where earlier-stage patients may have a more durable response, compared to higher-stage patients and, thus, the data may be further diluted by the small sample size,” he proposed. “Given this possibility, my sense is that the data is even more impressive since there still appears to be a significant clinical benefit at 3 years, and I would recommend larger studies in patients with earlier-stage melanoma as fertile ground for further oncolytic virus drug development.”

The current trial was funded by Amgen. Dr. Dummer disclosed relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, and CatalYm. Dr. Kaufman disclosed employment by Immuneering.

SOURCE: Dummer R et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 432.